Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

WORKS COUNCILS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of Works Councils that are representative of all interests that have been set up since September, 1939;
(2) the number of Works Councils which are representative of all interests that have been set up in the aircraft factories since 1939;
(3) the number of Works Councils in industry and the number in Royal Ordnance Factories; and is he satisfied with the functioning of the councils and the number?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): There are no statistics available as to the number of Works Councils which have been set up since September, 1939. I am aware, however, that there has been a welcome increase of interest in this matter both among employers and employees. So far as Royal Ordnance Factories are concerned, it is the general policy of the Ministry of Supply to establish these councils. I am satisfied that in general the councils are performing a valuable service and I look forward to their establishment on a much wider scale.

Mr. Tinker: Will my right hon. Friend see to it that this is made known to the workers?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, I will do that.

Mr. E. Smith: In view of the determination of the men employed in the factories to obtain the maximum production and to have a say in bringing that about, does not my right hon. Friend think that more concrete steps should be taken by the Ministers responsible in order to set up the largest number of councils?

Mr. Bevin: I have encouraged that, but I am in the difficulty that one of the largest unions concerned is opposed to this form of council, and that makes my task rather difficult.

RAILWAY SHOP CANTEEN, CAERPHILLY.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men at a Caerphilly railway shop, employing some 500 men, engaged on heavy engine repairs and working considerable overtime, have been negotiating for a canteen since the early part of the year, and that so far nothing has been done to provide the facilities asked for; and whether he will take steps to expedite the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I understand the proposal here is to convert existing feeding facilities into a canteen at which meals are sold and that, while there has been some unfortunate delay, arrangements for the immediate supply of light refreshments were being made last week and a full canteen service should be in operation very shortly.

DIRECTION TO WORKER (APPEAL).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now concluded his inquiries into the case of John Irwin, a coal-bagger, employed by the Westhoughton Industrial Co-operative Society, directed to return to work in a coal mine; and, if so, with what results?

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Irwin has appealed against the direction to return to coalmining employment at the Wigan Junction Colliery, and his case is to be considered by the Appeal Board on 10th October. As soon as a decision has been reached, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement in the Debate on manpower yesterday about the distributive trades, may I take it that he will look into the desperate situation of shopkeepers and distributors of coal, bread and milk, and allow them to retain some of their staffs?

Mr. Bevin: I am doing that. I have been in consultation with the distributive trades, but I should like the help of the House to assist me when I have to call up from other trades.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: In giving instructions to men who are ex-miners to return to the mines, will my right hon. Friend not discriminate too much as to where the men come from?

Mr. Bevin: We have not discriminated. In view of the urgency of the coal situation, the main task has been to get the men back to the mines.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the serious shortage of women for domestic service in Colwyn Bay; that many young women are leaving domestic service to serve in offices in the town; whether they are then in a reserved occupation; and what steps he is taking, in view of the increasing difficulties of many households with aged and invalid alone, to look after the persons billeted on them?

Mr. Bevin: The shortage of domestic servants is not confined to Colwyn Bay, and, in view of the great and increasing demands on woman labour, must be accepted as unavoidable. The question whether a woman who has changed her job to an office in the town, would be called for selection interview under the Registration for Employment Order, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers in the third part of his Question, would depend on the nature of the occupation and whether it had been entered into after registration.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the Minister see that the Ministry of Food, at all events, do not compete to get domestic servants away from the very houses in which they are supposed to look after civil servants? Will he bear in mind that civilian life has to go on in this town as well as in other towns and that aged and infirm people cannot look after civil servants?

Mr. Bevin: I can assure the hon. Member that we are taking very great care over the question of domestic servants. On the other hand, the experiment of doing a little domestic work by the families themselves might have a good effect.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that there is a very grave shortage of women with domestic experience in the A.T.S. and that perhaps the A.T.S. has

the greatest claim on domestic workers who can be released from their present employment?

Mr. Bevin: There is a shortage of this type of experienced person in all the Services, but I do not want it to be assumed that the main shortage in the A.T.S. is in this category. I have tried to the best of my ability to use lower grade categories for kitchen and domestic work in the Army, and in many cases I would prefer a grade 3 person to be an orderly in a kitchen in the Army rather than to have a grade A.1 woman put there when she could be better employed in a factory.

SEWERAGE SCHEME, REDDITCH (LABOUR).

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the delays, owing to lack of labour, in the completion of the sewerage and sewerage disposal scheme at Redditch, the completion of which is urgently pressed upon the urban district council by the Ministry of Supply and the public health and other authorities of the county, and which is urgently required in view of the additional houses and new hostels being erected for workers in the town; and what action he is taking to provide the necessary labour?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Active steps are being taken to meet the situation.

WOMEN (RE-REG ISTRATION ).

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give further instructions to all those concerned which will prevent young girl clerks, or others, demanding the ages of women in the presence of others when they re-register after moving into a new district?

Mr. Bevin: I have no doubt that the exchange staff are already well aware of the delicacy of this question, but if my hon. Friend has reason to think that avoidable publicity was given to it in any particular case I shall be glad to make inquiry.

Dr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I can give him information about a particular case, and does he not consider that it would be wise to temper the essential tyranny oi the times by tact and delicacy?

LOCAL APPEAL BOARDS ( RECOMMENDATIONS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour why a Local Appeal Board, to


whom a case of alleged absenteeism is referred by a National Service officer, is required to furnish to the parties concerned copies of its recommendation, whereas in other cases recommendations are communicated exclusively to the National Service officer?

Mr. Bevin: The procedure with regard to notifying the recommendations of a local appeal board to the workman and to his employer is prescribed by the Essential Work Order in cases where the board has been dealing with complaints made by the employer with regard to absenteeism or similar matters. No similar procedure is prescribed in cases where an appeal is lodged against a direction given by a National Service officer, and for reasons which I have already given I do not think it would be appropriate in such cases.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister give me the reason why the two cases should be treated differently? Why should not the recommendation be communicated to the parties concerned in all cases?

Mr. Bevin: As I explained recently, in one case the direction is given in regard to absenteeism, and we are dealing directly with the man and the prescribed employer, and in the other case it is a recommendation that may or may not have to be dealt with by the Minister himself. The two things are quite different.

CHAIN STORES (EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS).

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain chain stores who, at periods when workers were easily obtainable, employed young women and girls for half the week or less, and compelled them to draw unemployment benefit for the remainder of the week despite the large profits made and dividends distributed, are now attracting young persons under the age of reservation from trades of national value by the offer of high wages; and what steps he is taking to prevent such transfer of workers?

Mr. Bevin: I was not aware of this, and I should be grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend would send me details.

TRANSFERRED WORKERS (REINSTATEMENT).

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in cases where young women leave their employment for service in the Women's Royal Naval Service, the Auxiliary Territorial Service or the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, or under his direction for work of national importance, he proposes to direct the employer to re-employ such workers at the conclusion of such service?

Mr. Bevin: I have no power to issue such directions.

Lieutenant Butcher: Will the Minister bear in mind that if such an assurance concerning reinstatement were available, it might have a very considerable effect in accelerating the recruitment of young women for the Services?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I have given a great deal of study to this, but it is almost impossible to embody really effective administrative provisions in an Act of Parliament. The Government are giving consideration to the questions that will arise on the demobilisation of the Forces and of the people who have been transferred, and up to the moment the only satisfactory solution which is deemed to be likely to be successful is that where these disturbances have taken place, there should be certain general social obligations.

Lieutenant Butcher: Is the Minister aware that it will be the desire of good employers to reinstate these people, and will he consider whether there is some means of compulsion that could be applied to employers who do not come within that category?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, we shall study this matter in all its aspects. The concentration of industry and many other things sometimes make it difficult to know whether the employer is in fact there. One cannot find a substitute for the acceptance of a general social obligation.

Mr. Lipson: Is there any greater difficulty in giving this direction in regard to young women than in giving it to young men, who are to be reinstated?

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the principle was embodied in the Military Service Act which was passed by the House some three and a half years


ago, and in which provision was made for compensation if reinstatement was not made?

Mr. Bevin: I am aware of what was done in that Act, and I have studied the matter on that basis. The worst thing the House could do would be to find some loose legislation which, when it came to be carried out, would not prove to be effective. I am bound to say that the way in which my mind is moving is that there should be a general social obligation of some kind.

NEW INVENTIONS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE).

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an article appearing in the "Sunday Pictorial" of 28th September regarding the procedure for dealing with inventions; and whether, in view of the deleterious effect of such an article on our war effort by discouraging new inventions, he will take action to prevent a repetition of such a statement by this paper?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have not been able to find in it anything which requires any action on my part.

Mr. Samuel: May I ask whether this newspaper has been warned on previous occasions, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman behave like a worm in the turning stage and "Go to it"?

Mr. Morrison: The House will, I am sure, take the view that we really must not proceed to interfere with newspapers merely because they publish something with which we do not agree.

Mr. Samuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the article, when he will see that it distinctly says that inventions are not considered on their merits but from the point of view of whether they would utilise iron or wood, and that if they would they are turned down?

DEAF PERSONS.

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women have been rejected for the Services on account of defective hearing; what arrangements are made to secure employment for men discharged from the Services

on account of deafness; and whether he will obtain the co-operation of the National Institute for the Deaf in this task?

Mr. Bevin: As regards the first part of the Question, I regret that this information is not available. In regard to the second part, every effort is made through the Employment Exchange service to secure employment for men discharged from the Services on account of deafness, and I am in touch with the National Institute for the Deaf in this connection.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (DOMESTIC STAFFS).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many voluntary hospitals are seriously hampered, and some may even have to close down wholly or partly, owing to lack of ancillary staff such as stokers, porters and wardmaids; and as the work of these hospitals is work of national importance he will assist them by announcing this and by devising, in cooperation with the Ministry of Labour, some method of aiding the hospitals to obtain the necessary staff?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have for some time been concerned with the difficulties to which the hon. Lady refers, and I have recently discussed them with representatives of voluntary hospitals. Domestic work in hospitals is recognised as one of the services of most urgent national importance for which recruitment is to be carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I have issued a poster for circulation to hospitals to make this importance clear to those already employed in hospitals.

Miss Rathbone: Is there any means of directing the men and women who can be called up under the regulations to the hospitals?

Mr. Brown: I would not put it in that form. As the hon. Member knows, there are a great many considerations, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are both aware of the urgency of this problem, not only in hospitals but elsewhere.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Labour whether those who have been rejected from


national service on the ground of deafness can be utilised for this work where they could be very useful?

Mr. Brown: I will consider that.

Mr. Sorensen: In any negotiations with the voluntary hospitals, will my right hon. Friend insist on proper wage standards and conditions prevailing in these hospitals?

CHILD WELFARE INSTITUTIONS (DOMESTIC STAFFS).

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increasing difficulty of obtaining domestic service for residential nursery schools and other establishments in rural areas, owing to the call-up of women for national service; and whether he will take steps to secure adequate personnel for this essential national need?

Mr. E. Brown: Women, including domestic staff, employed in child welfare institutions are performing a very important national service and one which should offer special attraction to older women. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that there is no present intention of calling them up for selection interview within the age groups covered by the Registration for Employment Order.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will that allow for an increase in the establishment, which is now considerably depleted? We want extra persons.

Mr. Brown: I understand that. It is a difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MILK IN SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the National Milk Publicity Council, who inaugurated the Milk in Schools Scheme, find it impossible, under war conditions, to adhere to the original plan of supplying all milk in one-third pint bottles; and whether he will relax the rules by allowing milk to be supplied in bulk and its distribution organised by the teachers, so that the children may not be deprived of their milk?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers has been dealt with

in Circulars 1548 and 1565, of which I am sending him copies. The first of these circulars authorised expenditure by local education authorities on arrangements for handling bulk supplies of milk at schools in cases where a supply in one-third pint bottles could not be maintained. I appreciate the difficulty of supplying all milk in small bottles, but the problems of dealing with bulk supply in the schools are also formidable.

Sir P. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend get over these difficulties?

Mr. Butler: If my hon. Friend refers to the circulars, especially the first, he will see that we are doing our best, and I especially want to do my best.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will provide a list of local education authorities in the North of England which have adequate nursery school accommodation; and whether he will state his accepted definition of adequate accommodation in this respect?

Mr. Butler: The provision of nursery schools is not a statutory duty of local education authorities. The adequacy of the provision in any given area is dependent on local conditions including alternative arrangements for the education of children under five. I should not be disposed to say that any authority in the north of England or elsewhere had so far provided sufficient nursery schools to meet the needs of their areas and I look for suitable developments in this service when circumstances permit.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister be good enough to answer the first part of my Question and supply a list of the local education authorities which have provided this accommodation?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will read my answer carefully, he will see there is some difficulty, but I will try to do my best for him.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister also state what is the Ministerial definition of "adequate accommodation," in view of the fact that education authorities throughout the country have totally different estimates of what is adequate?

Mr. Butler: I would point out that there is some difficulty in defining the word "adequate."

SECONDARY SCHOOL CURRICULA AND EXAMINATIONS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the question of the school and higher certificate examinations will be included in the consideration of post war reconstruction in education which is now proceeding in his Department?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have approved the appointment of a small committee composed of members of the Secondary School Examinations Council to advise me on suggested changes in the secondary school curriculum and the related question of school examinations. The committee, which will be under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Norwood, will include representatives of the local education authorities, the teaching profession and the university examining bodies. The names of the committee will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this reform has long been desired and that his announcement to-day will be very welcome, particularly in view of the name of the chairman?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I attach great importance to the work that this committee is going to undertake.

Following are the names of the committee:

Sir Cyril Norwood (Chairman).
Miss M. G. Clarke, Headmistress, Manchester High School for Girls.
Miss O. M. Hastings, President, Association of Assistant Mistresses in Secondary Schools.
Mr. A. W. S. Hutchings, Secretary, Association of Assistant Masters in Secondary Schools.
Dr. P. D. Innes, C.B.E., Chief Education Officer for Birmingham.
Professor Joseph Jones, J.P., Chairman of the Brecon Education Committee.
Dr. J. E. Myers, Chairman, Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board.
Mr. E. W. Naisbitt, Assistant Master, Ryhope Secondary School, and Member of the Executive Committee of the National Union of Teachers.
Sir Percival Sharp, Secretary of the Association of Education Committees.
Mr. S. H. Shurrock, Secretary to the Matriculation and School Examinations Council, University of London.
Dr. Terry Thomas, Headmaster, Leeds Grammar School.

Mr. W. Nalder Williams, Secretary to the Syndicate of Local Examinations, University of Cambridge.
The chairman of the Committee will have power to co-opt other members of the Secondary School Examintions Council as required.
Mr. R. H. Barrow, H.M. Inspector, 9, Charlbury Road, Oxford, has been appointed Secretary to the Committee.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health approximately how many, or what percentage of, old age pensioners do not draw a supplementary pension; whether he has any information respecting the number who have applied for a supplementary pension owing to the increase in the cost of living; whether supplementary pensions are invariably increased in relation to the increased cost of living; and whether, in view of the present decreased value of the basic pension, he is considering the need of taking action respecting this hardship?

Mr. E. Brown: Nearly two-thirds of the total number of old age pensioners, including widow pensioners aged 60 years or over, are not receiving a supplementary pension. It is not' possible to say how many pensioners have applied for a supplementary pension because of an increase in the cost of living. All supplementary pensions are assessed in accordance with the scales laid down in the Regulations which include an element in respect of the increased cost of living. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Southward (Mr. Martin) on 7th August.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many elderly people are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet on the pensions and supplementary allowances which they receive? Is he further aware that many associations of old age pensioners have passed resolutions demanding more substantial increases?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, I have noticed these, and also the proceedings which took place at a recent conference.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend be likely to make some statement in the near future?

Mr. Brown: I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the widespread desire for the removal of the household means test in the matter of supplementary old age pensions; and whether he can indicate any prospect of an increase in the pensions paid?

Mr. Brown: As a result of the review of cases under the Determination of Needs Act, a large number of pensioners have received increases in their Supplementary Pensions. I hope to be able very soon to make a statement regarding the results of the review.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the means test is still operating as viciously as ever, and will the Minister have special reference to that in his review?

Mr. Brown: I could not accept that. As the House knows, I have tried to give as much information as I can on this very vital subject.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the spirit which prevailed in our discussion in this House on the means test is not being carried out by the Minister's officers, and that the means test is being more stringently applied to old age pensioners than was the intention of this House?

Mr. Brown: I cannot accept that.

Mr. Griffiths: It does not matter whether the Minister accepts it or not; it is a fact.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me evidence.

Mr. Griffiths: I will.

ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that 1914–18 war-disabled pensioners are almost the only class of persons who have received no assistance to help them meet the increased cost of living since the outbreak of the present war; and will he disregard the out-of-date 1919 cost-of-living figures on which their pensions are based, and take steps to increase the 1919 Royal Warrant scales, and bring into line with such amended scales the pensions paid to victims of the present war?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Great War pensioners did in effect receive this assistance in advance since the rates of pension laid down in the Royal Warrant of 6th December, 1919, for disablement due to service in the Great War were based on a cost-of-living figure higher than that prevailing to-day; the conditions under which those pension rates may be raised are laid down in that Royal Warrant. The hon. Member may be assured that, as I have frequently informed the House, the relation between pension rates and cost-of-living figures is kept constantly in mind.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the amount of pension is adequate to enable them to live under reasonable conditions?

Sir W. Womersley: The subject was debated very fully, and I have nothing to add to the statement I made on that occasion.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend answer my question whether he is satisfied or not?

Mrs. Tate: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Frome has received a protest from 433 men and women of Boston, Lincolnshire, against the unequal rate as between men and women under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme; and whether, in view of the growing indignation all over the country at the injustice to women under this scheme, he proposes to revise the rates?

Sir W. Womersley: While I am always prepared to consider representations relating to the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, I am not aware that any fresh arguments against the difference in the rates for men and women under this scheme have been produced in addition to those which I answered in the course of the Debate on 1st May last.

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no fresh arguments are needed and that the original arguments are sufficiently forcible? In view of the fact that compensation for air-raid victims is paid entirely out of taxation, are the Government prepared to reduce the Income Tax level of women, or is he going to allow the male population to be subsidised by the female population?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid I cannot enter into a Debate at Question Time. I answered all that the hon. Lady brought forward in the last Debate, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Graham White: Is this a matter upon which the right hon. Gentleman intends to ascertain the views of his advisory council?

Sir W. Womersley: I have not an advisory council dealing with this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: What is the reason for this grouch that the Government have against women?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no grouch. We all love them.

Mrs. Tate: You show it in a very funny way.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) what rules govern the amount of hardship allowances granted to officers' wives and dependants;
(2) what, for the purposes of hardship allowances for officers' wives and dependants, the provisions of the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, are applied to the resources of the applicants?

Sir W. Womersley: I assume that the Questions relate to war service grants. These grants are issuable to members of the Forces who are suffering serious financial hardship as a result of their being called up for war service. In cases fulfilling that condition the grant is at the rate necessary to remove the serious hardship, subject to a maximum of £2 a week, and the principles of the Determination of Needs Act are observed in arriving at the assessment.

Mr. Edwards: Do different rules apply to officers' dependants from those that apply to ordinary soldiers?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no difference at all. It is a truly democratic scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the need for supplying Russia as well as the

Near East from India, the Indian Government now proposes itself to start the manufacture of internal combustion engines in India?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): My right hon. Friend can rest assured that India's capacity to assist Russia as well as the Near East will be made available to the fullest extent, but, as I have already explained, the manufacture of internal combustion engines in India is not a practical proposition so far as the present war is concerned.

Mr. Wedgwood: How does the right hon. Gentleman know when the war will end? Is it not about time that with 400,000,000 people, you should start making something which is vital to the war?

ATLANTIC CHARTER.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Sir Sikander Hyat-Khan, the Punjab Premier, has publicly expressed his concern and embarrassment at the recent Government statement respecting the relationship of the Atlantic Charter to the future government of India; whether the. Punjab Premier has communicated with him on the matter; find whether he has any statement to make respecting this?

Mr. Amery: I have seen a report of the statement referred to. I can only repeat, in order to remove any possible ground for misunderstanding, that the Prime Minister's statement of 9th September with reference to the Atlantic Charter expressly made it clear that the Government's previous declarations with regard to the goal of India's attainment to free and equal partnership in the British Commonwealth, and with regard to our desire to see that goal attained with the least possible delay after the war, under a constitution framed by agreement among Indians themselves, hold good, and are in no way qualified. The answer to the remainder of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that a gentleman of this eminence, who can by no means be classified as an extremist, must have very great doubt as to the real intentions of the Government? Does not that


mean that we must reconsider our whole Indian policy to satisfy people of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

BILLETING.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a large proportion of the householders in a town of which he has been informed upon whom evacuated civil servants have been billeted have submitted medical certificates about themselves recommending that they be taken off the billeting list; and whether such certificates are being accepted?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that a number of householders in this district have submitted medical certificates to support a claim to be relieved of the responsibility for accommodating billeted persons. In such cases the householder is informed that he has the right of appeal to the local Billeting Tribunal set up under the Defence (Billeting Tribunal) Rules, 1939; and it is for the Tribunal to decide in the light of the evidence placed before them whether exemption from the acceptance of billeted persons should be granted.

Mr. Keeling: Does that mean that medical certificates are not being accepted, and is my right hon. Friend aware that it is notorious that these certificates are being given on inadequate grounds?

Mr. Brown: Since the first meeting of the Appeals Tribunal in October, 1940, out of 43 cases there have been only 20 appeals with a medical certificate. Out of the total of 20, 11 were upheld and nine disallowed. I would point out that in some cases the medical practitioner giving the certificate has appeared before the Tribunal.

FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that fire-watching schemes in the Metropolitan area are proceeding with adequate speed; and, if not, what action He proposes to take?

Mr. H. Morrison: The issue of the new Order relating to fire prevention at business premises, coupled with the introduction of the new Fire Guard organisation,

has involved a thorough review of fire prevention arrangements in all urban areas. Local authorities have been asked to press on with the new arrangements with the utmost despatch, and to facilitate this end, wide discretionary powers have been granted to Regional Commissioners to approve local authorities' schemes without reference to headquarters.

Mr. Simmonds: In view of the magnitude of the task, is there anyone charged with reviewing at frequent intervals the progress that is being made by local authorities?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, that is the duty of the Regional Commissioners and they report to us. That question will be kept in mind. Moreover, the Parliamentary Secretary is constantly supervising the progress of the work.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any reports as to the working out of the National Fire Scheme from the point of view of the financial burdens to be shared by local authorities; and whether he has any statement to make upon the operation of this scheme?

Mr. Morrison: As was announced to the House on 13th May last, the Exchequer now bears the full cost of the National Fire Service, subject to a contribution by the local authorities on the basis of 75 per cent. of the cost of the regular fire brigade service in a standard year. After discussion with representatives of the local authorities, these arrangements were embodied in the National Fire Service (Financial) Regulations of 18th. August last, and, while it is difficult at so early a stage to form any final conclusion, I have no reason to doubt that they will prove satisfactory in practice.

PERSONNEL (PAID MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he will inform all appropriate local authorities, in view of the fact that it has been found undesirable for members of local authorities to hold paid appointments in Civil Defence where they become subordinate to the staff of the authority, that as soon as they can be replaced these members should have their paid appointments terminated?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would remind my hon. Friend that provision was made by the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, that a person shall not be disqualified for being a member of a local authority by reason only of his being employed in a civil defence service for reward. I recognise that there is an important point of principle involved, especially where appointments to administrative posts are concerned, and it is not my policy to encourage such appointments save in exceptional circumstances where the public interest so requires.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was one of many put through in a very few minutes under extreme pressure, and has it not been a canon of local government that this situation of an elected member being employed by the stipendiary head of the local authority is most undesirable? Is he aware that several most unpleasant cases have arisen under this Act, and will he therefore consider whether some more formal action is not required by him?

Mr. Morrison: Although it is the case that this was an Act passed with many others in one day, I am faced with the fact that it is on the Statute Book, and I cannot set it aside. Nevertheless, I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member says, and he has the sympathy of the House, and I will keep the matter in mind.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' COMMITTEES.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to allow local authorities, which do not authorise an emergency committee for Civil Defence purposes, to continue the undesirable and potentially dangerous practice of operating still through full committees?

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know of any case in which a scheme-making authority has not appointed an emergency committee. As regards non-scheme making authorities, county councils were asked to consider with them the appointment of emergency committees in appropriate cases: and as far as I am aware this has been done. Perhaps if my hon. Friend has any particular instance in mind he will communicate with me.

"TRUTH."

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the views expressed by the paper "Truth," which are those of the British Union of Fascists, and contain sneers at America and Russia; and, in view of the danger to the national war effort, will he take appropriate steps to deal with this publication, either directly, or through the Paper Control Board?

Mr. H. Morrison: If this or any other paper infringes the provisions of the Defence Regulations, it becomes my duty to consider taking appropriate action, but it is the desire of the House and of the Government that there shall be the minimum of interference with the liberty of the Press, and as my right hon. Friend will recognise, the strong objection which he or I may feel to certain articles is not in itself a ground for action under those Regulations.

Mr. Wedgwood: While this paper may be moderate in its comments at present, what will be the action of such a Quisling paper if the Germans ever come here? Will not they have a supply of paper and machinery for acting as the organ of the new Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that point of view into account in regard to the publication of this wretched rag?

Mr. Morrison: If the Germans did achieve that very high degree of success, I should imagine that they would take their own steps.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend's answer is very satisfactory and we appreciate his desire to accord freedom to the Press, but does that not also apply to the "Daily Worker"?

Mr. Wedgwood: I will bring the matter up on the Adjournment, with extracts from the paper.

DETAINEES.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of allowing internees of both sexes who have been interned under Defence Regulation I8B to be released on parole on condition that they volunteer for work of national importance restricted to certain categories where there is a shortage of labour, and provided also


that they shall be granted parole only after a further examination of their previous records?

Mr. H. Morrison: All cases of persons detained under this Regulation are carefully reviewed from time to time, and in considering whether or not to authorise release one of the factors of which' I take account is whether the person concerned is genuinely willing to assist in the national war effort. I do not, however, think it is necessary to include a formal condition to this effect in an order for release. My hon. Friend will also appreciate that there are some cases where, in the interests of national security, it is not possible for me to authorise a person's release even if he asserts that he is willing to undertake work of national importance.

SHOPS (CLOSING HOURS).

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to review or vary the regulations for the early closing of retail shops during the ensuing winter months; whether he has sought agreement with the employers' and workpeople's representatives as to the best possible solution of the problem; and, in view of the urgency, can he now make a statement?

Mr. H. Morrison: After consultation with representatives of shopkeepers and shop assistants, it has been decided to make a Defence Regulation similar to that which operated last winter providing that from the first Sunday in November to the first Sunday in March the general closing hours for shops shall be 6 p.m. and on the late night 7.30 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. The Regulation will enable local authorities after consultation with the persons concerned to vary these hours locally, subject to certain limits. In addition, in certain special areas where for the purpose of easing the transport difficulties it is desirable that shoppers and shop assistants shall travel home before the peak traffic hour, power is taken to make special arrangements after local consultations for the earlier closing of shops, excluding food shops and very small shops. In framing these Regulations regard has been had to the experience obtained last winter and to the importance of not making it unduly difficult for industrial workers to do their necessary shopping.

Mr. Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend, in sending out his circular to local

authorities, stress the importance of consultation, keeping in mind that consultation does not merely mean an exchange of letters after the local city fathers have decided policy? Will my right hon. Friend keep that important point in mind?

Mr. Morrison: The Regulations provide that the council should come to a decision after consultation, and I will keep in mind the point my hon. Friend raises.

DEBRIS CLEARANCE, LONDON (WORKERS).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state what inquiries are made into the character and antecedents of men employed in demolition work?

Mr. H. Morrison: As stated in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on both September, it was not considered necessary to make special inquiries before recruiting men for demolition work in London.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the many cases of theft that have recently come before the courts and the strong views expressed by the Chief Magistrate on the subject, does not my right hon. Friend think that some inquiry should be made by the Employment Exchange before these men are taken on?

Mr. Morrison: In view of the importance of getting this work done, I am afraid that it would be most unwise and injudicious to try and make inquiries into the character of the large number of labouring men who are involved. On the other hand, it is not wise to exaggerate the degree of these thefts.

Sir Percy Harris: Is my right hon. Friend conscious of the fact that this work has been done magnificently and with great speed in the last few months, and should not the men, who, as a whole, are a decent lot of workers, get the credit for it?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the strictures recently passed upon the personnel of the demolition service, of which copies have been forwarded to him; and whether, in the interests of the members of this service, he will have inquiry made as to the justification for the allegations?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 10th September.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: At a time when careless talk is so much deprecated, cannot something be done to prevent magistrates making such remarks as that they are beginning to wonder whether there is an honest demolition worker?

Mr. H. Morrison: On certain occasions magistrates let their eloquence get the better of their discretion.

Mr. Silverman: So do Ministers.

LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS

Sir T. Moore: asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to minimise the effects of the black-out during the winter months in regard to the war effort as well as the comfort and safety of the public?

Sir William Wayland: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now, in the interest of life and limb, suggest a modified pre-war system of street-lighting in the large towns and cities, as the present black-out has proved useless against bomb attacks?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Lighting Restrictions Regulations are under constant consideration by His Majesty's Government. We are keeping an alert mind on the subject and are always ready to adapt our policy to meet the situation as it exists from time to time. In all these matters we are largely guided by the expert advice of the Air Staff. The proposal that the streets should be lighted above the standard now permitted ignores the danger that by so doing we should give to the enemy a ready-made map of the area he may wish to bomb. The Air Staff would be glad indeed if the Germans would light their towns and I am advised that the suggestion in the last part of Question No. 41 is not borne out by the facts.
It has been suggested that arrangements might be made to extinguish lights on receipt of a warning, but, apart from the fact that this would involve a considerable amount of electrical work which could not rapidly be carried out under the existing conditions of labour and supply, this scheme would be likely to lead to an

increase of road accidents with vehicles which must continue to run after the lights had been suddenly extinguished. Furthermore it assumes that a warning can always be given, but as my predecessor and I have frequently pointed out in the House, the air raid warning system is not automatic but depends on many human and other uncertain factors. And we must not be lulled into any false sense of security by our recent, and in all probability temporary, freedom from raiding on a large scale.
I am making inquiry in regard to the arrangements in Moscow which have been described in the Press, but I am not sure that experience in that city is relevant to conditions in this country. With a view to facilitating the war effort certain relaxations of the lighting restrictions, including "star" street lighting and the additional motor headlamp, have already been authorised, but it would not be in the national interest that details of all such relaxations should be given either by me or by other hon. Members. I am disposed to think that as things are the increased lighting of streets which has been suggested would cause alarm and disquiet among the general public who, I believe, would prefer the admitted inconveniences of the blackout to which they are accustomed to the risks which they apprehend from street lighting.

Sir T. Moore: While fully recognising all the facts which my right hon. Friend has given, may I ask whether our scientists and engineers are constantly seeking some method by which some relaxation can be made which will give our people a little more comfort and light and our war output a better chance of success?

Mr. Morrison: That aspect has not been overlooked. A fair amount of research and, indeed, preparation on this matter have been undertaken, but for reasons which I have indicated I thought it unwise to make a general relaxation.

Sir W. Wayland: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, may I ask whether it is not a fact that not a single raid has been prevented by the black-out and not one life saved, and that the trade of the country has been seriously interfered with by the black-out?

Mr. Morrison: These statements, which I have seen elsewhere, are very gratuitous assertions. There is a great deal of difference between the enemy not knowing precisely what he is bombing and knowing precisely what he is bombing. Frankly, the case has not yet been proved to my satisfaction that production has been gravely interfered with as a result of the blackout.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the objection to turning up the lights really a Home Office objection and not an objection on the part of the Air Ministry?

Mr. Morrison: On this matter we act largely on the advice of the Air Staff, who are the important people concerned. The decision I have referred to is not merely a departmental decision, but the decision of His Majesty's Government.

COMMUNIST PARTY.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary, in view of his decision that the Communist Party of Great Britain is not loyal to this country, what steps he intends to take to dissolve that organisation and /or to prosecute its members?

Mr. H. Morrison: In a free country where the laws are so framed as to allow the utmost liberty for expressions of opinion and to prevent any undue interference with political propaganda it is a mistake to infer that if the law is not set in motion there is no disloyalty. The fact that no action has been taken against this Party is not a testimony to their loyalty: it is a testimony to the liberality of our laws and the desire of the Government to made the minimum use—even in time of war—of repressive measures. So long as security considerations permit I am anxious to avoid taking such steps for the suppression of the Communist Party or the prosecution of its members as my hon. Friend appears to suggest.

Mr. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend think it fair or consistent with his duty that he should make charges in this House and the persons accused have no adequate opportunity of answering them?

Mr. Morrison: The persons concerned have an honourable and eloquent Member in this House to express their opinions, which he frequently does.

Mr. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that he also distinguishes in his own actions—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Silverman: May I not put my question in another way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had his answer.

Mr. Silverman: In that case, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

SHELTERS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether, in sanctioning schemes and plans for air-raid shelters, he follows the policy of preferring such shelters as will have post-war uses as clubs, gymnasia, wash-houses and so forth, thus greatly minimising, over a long period, the cost of shelters?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am always ready to consider proposals on the lines suggested: but experience has shown that there is little scope for such schemes in view of the limitations of time, labour and materials within which the urgent work of providing shelter must be carried out.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that certain local authorities are pressing this point of view?

Mr. Morrison: I am willing to consider on their merits any proposals that local authorities may put up.

"DAILY WORKER."

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the resolution of the Pathhead and Sinclair-town Co-operative Society, a copy of which has been sent to him, asking that the ban prohibiting the publication of the "Daily Worker" be lifted in view of the declared support of that paper to the policy of British-Soviet unity in international affairs; and what answer he has made?

Mr. H. Morrison: This resolution and others were duly considered, and have been answered by the statements which I have made in Parliament.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the Minister aware that resolutions of a similar nature have


been sent to him by very large and important industrial organisations; and is it not time that a decision was arrived at more consistent with the dignity and well-being of the nation?

Mr. Morrison: All representations are considered and given their proper weight, but I must make it clear that, in the end, I am responsible to the House of Commons.

Mr. Bevan: Is not that the best reason for raising the matter once more in the House of Commons?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it assumed that a paper, disloyal once, is to be considered disloyal for ever?

Mr. Morrison: I have never made any such declaration. I do not know why my hon. Friend should make such an accusation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this not a perpetual ban by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Morrison: I have not said so.

INTERNMENT CAMP, ISLE OF MAN (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Home Secretary whether the 20 internees under Regulation I8B, who have been removed to prison from Peel Camp, have been, or are being, charged with an offence; and, if not, in what manner have these detainees been selected?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. As I explained in the statement I made on 2nd October, these men have been selected for removal to prison on the ground that they are persons likely to cause trouble in the camp.

Sir I. Albery: Have the6e men now been removed from preventive detention to punitive detention?

Mr. Morrison: They are still in preventive detention.

BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the purpose for which the pensionable age of a blind person was reduced from 50 to 40 has been realised or whether his attention has been called to the extent by which local authorities have caused

the financial benefits of the amended Act to be reduced or cancelled; and what steps he proposes to take to give to eligible blind persons the benefit intended for them?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir; it was always contemplated that a local authority in granting financial assistance to a blind person under the Blind Persons Acts would take into account the amount of any old age pension received by him; and one of the objects of reducing the pensionable age for blind persons was to secure that the burden of providing assistance to blind persons should be shared between the Exchequer and the local authorities. I see no need, therefore, for any special action in the matter.

Sir R. Young: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unfortunate that local authorities should have taken advantage of the Act, and thus used it to reduce rates instead of helping these unfortunate people?

HOSPITAL SERVICE (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to indicate the general lines of the Government's post-war hospital policy?

Mr. E. Brown: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, answer this Question at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. Brown: The question of post-war hospital policy and reorganisation, more particularly in relation to the Emergency Hospital Scheme, has for some time been engaging the attention of the Government. While any immediate reorganisation must be regarded as impracticable in present circumstances, certain broad principles can be laid down as the basis of Government policy. It is the objective of the Government as soon as may be after the war to ensure that by means of a comprehensive hospital service appropriate treatment shall be readily available to every person in need of it. It is accordingly proposed to lay on the major local authorities the duty of securing, in close co-operation with the voluntary agencies engaged in the same field, the provision of such a service by placing on a more regular footing the partnership between the local authorities and voluntary hospitals


on which the present hospital services depend. The Government recognise that to achieve the best results and to avoid a wasteful multiplication of accommodation and equipment it will be necessary to design such a service by reference to areas substantially larger than those of individual local authorities. It will be the aim of the Government also to avoid overlapping and uneconomical expenditure by securing the provision of the more highly specialised services at teaching hospitals and other centres selected to serve these wider areas, and by arranging for a proper division of function between hospitals in these areas.
With regard to the financial aspects of the Government's proposals, it is their intention to maintain the principle that in general patients should be called on to make a reasonable payment towards the cost whether through contributory schemes or otherwise. In so far as any new burden may be thrown upon local authorities in providing or maintaining hospital accommodation, or in contributing towards the expenditure of voluntary hospitals, a financial contribution, the extent of which will be a matter for further consideration, will be made available from the Exchequer. Special arrangements for dealing with the teaching hospitals by way of increased educational grants are in contemplation. In present circumstances the arrangements for hospital services must be determined by war-time requirements, but the Government are anxious to take every step to avoid any unnecessary delay. I have already had preliminary discussions with the bodies representing the municipal hospital authorities and the voluntary hospital movement, and I am hopeful that these discussions will be continued. With their concurrence I am instituting a survey of hospitals in London and the surrounding area, to provide the information needed as a basis for future plans. As regards the remainder of the country, valuable preliminary work has already been done in some areas by bodies representing both the municipal and voluntary hospital authorities, in particular, by an organisation formed under the auspices of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. In any surveys which it may be found necessary to institute in the provinces I shall have full regard to the information already available in this way, which I am glad to know will be at my disposal for the

purpose. I am asked by the Secretary of State for Scotland to take this opportunity of stating that the aims of future policy in Scotland are generally similar, but that certain important differences in the Emergency Hospital Service and in the methods of financing voluntary hospitals in Scotland are being given special consideration.

Sir F. Fremantle: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what kind of personnel will be engaged on this survey? Is it to be carried out simply by the officials of the Department concerned, or will officials of the local authorities be consulted, along with professional or other outside persons who are interested?

Mr. Brown: I shall do my best to see that the most competent persons are consulted in this most important survey.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will local bodies be consulted?

Mr. Brown: Undoubtedly.

Earl Winterton: Speaking as a hospital chairman, may I ask whether, in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will keep in close touch with the British Hospitals Association?

Mr. Brown: We have been so doing, and shall continue so to do.

Dr. Haden Guest: Will the light hon. Gentleman also consider hospital policy in relation to the future of the medical profession as a whole, with a view to bringing forward a scheme for a general national health service in the country?

Mr. Brown: That is, of course, a wider question, and the hospital service must be considered first.

Lieutenant Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that in the scheme that he has announced proper use will be made of voluntary hospitals?

Mr. Brown: Yes. I contemplate that the general control to be exercised by my Department will secure that in the design of the scheme for the future hospital service full opportunity will be given to the voluntary hospitals to play their part.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the recommendations of the inter-departmental committee, of which several Members of


this House were members and which inquired into the problem of the proper staffing of hospitals, which found that one of the chief problems of hospitals was that of proper staffing by well-paid and well-treated nurses?

Mr. Brown: I shall have an announcement to make on the question of nursing in the near future.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing well in mind the principle that, if increased public financial aid is to be given to these voluntary hospitals, it should carry with it a relative amount of control and responsibility on the part of the local authorities?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will see that the arrangements provide first for consultation between all concerned, then for the survey, and afterwards for the working-out of the scheme, of course with the approval of the Ministry. These are the wise stages by which a comprehensive scheme of this kind should proceed.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the maintenance of voluntary hospitals and their subvention by public funds and flag-days is becoming increasingly repugnant to the conscience of the public, and has not the time arrived when we should have a hospitals' scheme more in accord with civilised notions of organised society?

Mr. Brown: First, public response to the appeals does not seem to bear out my hon. Friend's suggestion, neither, secondly, do the welcome and increased contributions, made in factories and workshops by workmen themselves, to their local contributory schemes.

Mr. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained the views in this matter of the present Home Secretary, has he considered the consequences of the London hospitals' scheme, and does he realise that his present policy is repugnant to every Labour Minister on the bench—or ought to be?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will read my statement carefully, he will see that we have had consultations with all bodies concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reply to the particular point

of my question dealing with the relationship between increased financial aid from public sources and proportionate representation and control?

Mr. Brown: I cannot add anything regarding the financial aspect of the scheme to what I have said in my statement. The House will appreciate that I cannot go into details in advance of the consultation, survey, preparation and settlement of the scheme.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Home Secretary the number of stipendiary magistrates employed in the Metropolitan police area; the total number of cases heard by them in 1940; the number of days each sat in 1940; the number of hours per day; and the average number of cases each dealt with per working day?

Mr. H. Morrison: There are at present 26 magistrates of the Metropolitan police courts. During the year ending 31st March, 1941, the total number of cases heard was 165,748, the average number of sittings per magistrate was approximately 170, and the average number of cases heard daily by each magistrate was about 38. Adjourned hearings are not included in these figures. The magistrates are required normally to be in attendance from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., but during the war these hours have been varied so as to allow the courts to close at 4 p.m. if the work of the day has then been finished. During the winter months the hours of the court wen; altered to 9.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with a proviso that the court might be closed at an earlier hour, not being earlier than 3.30 p.m., if the work of the court was finished. It is proposed that a similar arrangement should be made during the coming winter in order to enable the staff and others to get to their homes before night fall.

Dr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider easing the duties of the magistrates so that those who come in front of them will not get the impression that their cases are unduly hurried?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that under observation, but I do not think that the courts are unduly overworked.

Dr. Thomas: asked the Home Secretary whether he can indicate as nearly as


possible the number of persons convicted by Metropolitan police magistrates in 1940 on unconfirmed police evidence, and the proportion this number bears to the total convictions by these magistrates in that year?

Mr. Morrison: To examine the notes of evidence in the very large number of cases where there was a plea of "not guilty" with a view to trying to discover whether there was or was not something to confirm in whole or in part the police evidence would be a most difficult and laborious task, of which the value seems to me doubtful, and I should be reluctant to direct such an investigation at a time when every effort is being made to save clerical labour.

Dr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but does he not agree that many of the convictions are obtained upon uncorroborated police evidence?

Mr. Muff: Is it in keeping with the Common Law that only a police constable's evidence should be confirmed?

MERCANTILE MARINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Petty Officer A. P. Herbert: asked the Prime Minister whether he will be able to find time in the present Session for a discussion of the Motion, Mercantile Marine (Royal Commission), standing in the names of the Senior Burgess for Oxford University and more than 100 other Members of this House?

[That this House, gratefully recognising the brave and faithful services, in peace and war, of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, and the importance, at all times, of the service to the nation, humbly prays that His Majesty will appoint a Royal Commission to enquire and advise what action may be necessary to raise the status, improve the conditions and regulate the employment of these officers and men.]

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I think that an opportunity will occur during the present Session for a discussion of this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HILL SHEEP SUBSIDY.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture the considerations and conditions which are taken into account before refusing or allowing the 2S. 6d. subsidy for hill sheep breeding ewes?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The subsidy scheme applies to regular breeding ewe stocks of mountain breeds kept under natural conditions on mountain or hill land in accordance with the generally recognised practices of hill sheep farming. The ewes must be of a class that is kept and rears its lambs on the hills and, except in severe weather, must not be hand fed. I am sending my hon. Friend a statement and copy of the application form which give fuller details.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister consider that Exmoor horned sheep bred and kept all the year round on a farm 1,400 feet above sea level should be classified as hill sheep eligible for subsidy?

Mr. Hudson: That is a matter for decision in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the given case.

Sir W. Smithers: If I bring a case to the notice of the Minister in which a flock is not brought down, will he give the matter sympathetic consideration?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture for how many breeding ewes on Exmoor the 2s. 6d. subsidy has been granted; the names of the farms and the breed of the sheep; and why the 2s. 6d. subsidy for breeding ewes is not being granted to farmers on Exmoor who breed Exmoor horned sheep?

Mr. Hudson: No payment of hill sheep subsidy has yet been made in respect of ewes on Exmoor, but I am advised that most flocks fail to qualify. The system of management followed by most owners of Exmoor horned sheep does not accord with the general practices of hill sheep farming, to which the subsidy scheme was intended to apply.

Sir W. Smithers: Again I ask the Minister whether, if I bring him specific cases where sheep are kept all the year round in the most hard conditions on the top of the hills, he will give them sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Hudson: I think my hon. Friend had better read the application form.

REQUISITIONED LAND.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether compensation will be paid for arable land taken over by the War Office or the Royal Air Force for cultivations or only if the seed has been sown?

Mr. Hudson: Where agricultural land is requisitioned under the Defence Regulations compensation is payable under Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Such compensation includes payment to the person in occupation of the land at the time of taking possession, of a sum equal to the amount which might reasonably have been expected to be payable by an incoming tenant for cultivations, seeds, tillages, growing crops and other similar matters.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. gentleman make the position quite clear, especially in Wiltshire and in the Wylye Valley scheme, because the uncertainty is stopping the ploughing-up of essential land for winter wheat?

ASSISTANCE (ARMY PERSONNEL).

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture what assistance is at present being given by Army personnel on the land?

Mr. Hudson: A considerable amount of assistance to farmers has been and still is being given by Army personnel.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In places where there are Army depots, could not my right hon. Friend arrange for the employment of C.3 category men to assist in getting in the crops?

Mr. Hudson: If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular case in which there is difficutly perhaps he will let me have particulars of it.

PONIES AND LIGHT HORSES (FEEDING-STUFFS).

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Agriculture why arrangements have been made to supply rations to racing geldings but not to ponies and light horses generally; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent falling-off in the breeding of the latter classes of horses?

Mr. Hudson: Rations are being allowed for racing geldings in accordance with the Government's decision that a limited programme of racing should be permitted. The supply of cereals and cereal products available for distribution under the rationing scheme is inadequate to allow rations to be provided for ponies and light horses generally, and their owners are expected to grow feeding-stuffs for them. I have no evidence of a serious decline in the breeding of ponies and horses of the kinds to which my hon. Friend refers.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in framing the policy of ploughing-up additional grassland for the current ploughing season, he sought the opinion of any of the county war agricultural committees; and how many of these advised him that the programme now being enforced was beyond the resources of the farming community to cultivate properly?

Mr. Hudson: In April last I invited those executive committees who had expressed a wish for a provisional ploughing task to supply preliminary estimates to me. It was after consideration of these estimates and of the full information which I obtained from my liaison officers and Land Commissioners that I suggested to each committee a figure at which they should aim for the 1942 harvest. The carrying-out of the task will obviously depend on the supply of labour, machinery and fertilisers available, and there is no intention of enforcing a programme which is beyond the resources of the farming community.

Wing-Commander James: May we take it that if local circumstances, such as seasonal conditions or scarcity of labour, make it impracticable to plough up the land and carry out the programme fully, there will be a modification of the orders already made?

Mr. Hudson: I have already said that the carrying-out of the task will depend upon the supply of labour, machinery and fertilisers available, and I have no intention of enforcing a programme which cannot be carried out.

Mr. Higgs: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what penalty there is against


men who, when they have been ordered to plough up a field, do not carry out the cultivation at the proper time?

Mr. Hudson: I will send my hon. Friend the particulars.

LIVESTOCK, AIR RAIDS.

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any estimate of the number and value of farm livestock destroyed or injured in air raids up to date, and of the number and value of such livestock which was either rescued and restored by the National Air-Raid Precautions Animals Committee organisation or slaughtered and rendered fit for human consumption with the aid of that body?

Mr. Hudson: The figures for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks have not been collected. Their collection, if possible at all, would involve a very considerable amount of labour which would appear incommensurate with the result and after consulting my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Home Security, it seems doubtful whether even after collection it would be expedient in the public interest to announce them.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS (JURIES).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, of 50 men called to Middlesex Guildhall, on 25th September, 20 were kept waiting day after day without serving on a jury; that many of these men were called from work of national importance; and whether he will take steps to prevent this wastage of man-power?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made inquiry and am informed that there was a particularly heavy calendar of cases for trial at these Sessions. Sixty-four jurors were summoned, of whom 13 were excused in advance of the Sessions. None' of the remaining jurors asked to be excused when their names were called on the first day, but six of them applied for and were granted release on subsequent days. During the entire period of the Sessions no application for release was refused; and in the course of the later days of the Session the reserve juries were released as soon as it became clear that they could be safely spared. As the hon. and gallant

Member will appreciate, it is impossible to calculate beforehand precisely how many jurors will be required, and some margin is needed to allow for such contingencies as excusals, illness, or the need for empanelling an entirely fresh jury if a disagreement occurs. I am, however, very anxious that all practicable steps shall be taken to economise the use of manpower; and the number of jurors who need to be summoned on any particular occasion has been substantially reduced by various emergency provisions. I feel sure that those responsible for the summoning and release of jurors will keep in mind the importance of interfering as little as practicable with work of national importance.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that 20 jurors in reserve for over four days are rather too many?

Mr. Morrison: Attention has been called to the matter, and I have no doubt that notice will be taken of it, but there are all the other considerations to which I have drawn attention.

THEFT, STOKE NEWINGTON.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the case of Mr. Issy Warren, at Fountayne Road, Stoke Newington, who had £7,000 in notes taken from his safe on Saturday, 20th September; and whether anyone has been arrested?

Mr. H. Morrison: The circumstances of this case are still under inquiry by the police. No arrest has been made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us the forthcoming Business of the House?

Mr. Attlee: The Business will be as follows:

First Sitting Day—Committee and, if possible, further stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill and of the Local Elections Bill.

Second Sitting Day—Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, if not previously disposed of; Second Reading of the Marriage (Members of His Majesty's Forces) Bill, which is expected to be received from another place; and Motion to approve the Fish Sales (Charges) Order.

Third Sitting Day—The Adjournment of the House will be moved, and a Debate will take place on Service pay and dependants' allowances.

I would state also that, at the end of Questions, I propose to ask the House to go into Secret Session, in order that I may make a statement on a Motion relating to the Sittings of the House.

Mr. Lees-Smith: In regard to the Second Sitting Day, which does not seem to be a very full day, will the Lord Privy Seal take note that a number of hon. Members would like to raise questions in regard to health?

Mr. Bevan: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce the end of the Session?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot say.

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken that Strangers were present.

Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill to which I am asking the House to give a Second Reading to-day is a successor to the two miscellaneous agricultural Bills which were introduced and passed in 1940. I cannot claim that it enshrines any great new principle, because we are pushing on under our existing powers to the utmost of our capacity with food production, and we have increased very considerably the amount of food grown this year, not only for human consumption but also for our livestock. For instance, I anticipate that our output of cereals and straw this year will be at least half as much again as it was in 1939. In addition there has been a very considerable expansion of the production of potatoes and vegetables for human consumption and of fodder crops. We intend to go on increasing to the utmost of our ability the expansion of food production.
But we have found from our experience of the last 12 months that' there is a certain number of things that require legislation, and they form the subject of this Bill. The Bill deals mainly with three things. First, it provides the necessary legislative sanction for the continuance of the lime subsidy and grants for drainage, which were originally introduced in the Agriculture Act, 1937. Secondly, arising out of our experience of the last 12 months, it expands somewhat our powers for drainage and for providing increased facilities for upland and fenland

farms. Thirdly, it confers certain powers on the Government to acquire land already requisitioned for agricultural reasons so as to ensure that the expenditure of public money on the improvement of that land shall be recovered, as far as practicable, by the State. That is a brief summary of the provisions of the Bill, but as necessarily some of it is legislation by reference, it would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House if I ran through the various Clauses in greater detail and tried to explain them.
Clause 1 extends until 31st July, 1944, the lime subsidy, but transfers direct responsibility for administering it from the Land Fertility Committee to the Agricultural Ministers. The similar subsidy on basic slag is definitely abolished as from 31st July last, and that corresponds with the announcement I made on 12th June. I think it will be generally agreed that the arrangement for subsidising the supply of lime ought to continue and not to come to an end as it otherwise would do on 31st July this year. We are taking active steps to increase the supply of lime and to encourage producers to expand their plants. The regional organisation which we set up to achieve this object has actually succeeded in increasing by no less than 70 per cent. the supply of lime to farms during the summer off-season this year. New plant has been set up by 20 firms, five making quicklime and 15 for grinding limestone, and other firms are submitting specifications. At six other works new limestone grinding plants are being set up with State assistance. We are trying to concentrate State assistance on plants in areas where the need for concentrating lime is greatest or will be the greatest as a result of the ploughing-up campaign and where the few existing plants are not capable of being developed by the producers' own resources. Naturally, difficulties of labour, fuel and transport are continually arising, but the new regional organisation is, I believe, overcoming them as fast as possible. Indeed, as the result of smoothing out these difficulties and putting up these new plants we shall hope to increase the supplies of lime this year by no less than 75 per cent. over 1940–41. We expect that the lime subsidy for 1941 will be at least £1,500,000 and probably greater in the next few years. In view of these developments which could not appropriately be brought within the scope of


the old Land Fertility scheme under the Agriculture Act, 1937, direct responsibility for administration of the subsidy arrangements has been transferred to the Agricultural Ministers, but full use is being made of the administrative machinery set up by the Land Fertility Committee and we are grateful to the members of that committee for the work they have put in over the last four years.
As regards basic slag, the subsidy has come to an end, and it will be realised by hon. Members that the war has brought about considerable changes in the fertiliser position. Supplies of fertilisers generally are controlled by the Ministry of Supply in consultation with the Agricultural Departments, and we have stabilised the prices of phosphatic fertilisers with the help of a considerable Exchequer subsidy. At the same time, in view of the railway position and the transport position generally, it is of the utmost importance to try to minimise the costs of distribution, and especially the areas of distribution. Therefore, we are trying to arrange that, as basic slag and superphosphates are, to all intents and purposes, interchangeable, the supply of basic slag should be distributed near the point of origin and that the supply of superphosphates also should be distributed as near as possible to the points of manufacture. This must affect some individual farmers, but I think hon. Members will agree with me that the economy and the saving in transport will fully justify any slight inconvenience which individual farmers may have to suffer. As regards the total supplies, we have established a reserve at the disposal of county committees so that those farmers who must have phosphates because of the phosphatic deficiency of their particular soil can be assured that they will get them in time, and that there will be no dispute of the sort that there was last year, when some farmers ordered them, but could not get delivery. Thanks to the invaluable assistance of the United States under the Lease-Lend Act, we have made arrangements for a considerable increase in the total supplies of phosphatic fertilisers, and with reasonable care in their distribution there should be sufficient for the increased demands that will be made as a result of the increased arable acreage.
Before dealing in detail with Clause 2 and the later Clauses on land drainage, I would remind the House that drainage

is no new subject, and that it is because of the multiplicity of Acts on the Statute Book that the following Clauses dealing with drainage are a little difficult to understand owing to the necessity of legislation by reference. I take it that the House agrees on the fundamental necessity of drainage. We have already spent over £2,500,000 on schemes affecting nearly 2,000,000 acres since the beginning of the war, and considering the labour difficulties, I think that is a satisfactory result. We have already in use. about £250,000 worth of new drainage machinery, and we have a good deal more on order. The limiting factor, of course, is labour, but even that I hope gradually to overcome by the use of increased numbers of Italian prisoners of war. The various Clauses dealing with drainage are intended to increase the facilities to the farmers which the experience of the last 12 months has shown to be needed.
Clause 2 is relatively straightforward. It extends to 31st July, 1944, the period in which Exchequer grants may be made in respect of the improvement of minor arterial watercourses. These grants are, of course, the keystone of the whole of our drainage programme Schemes covering more than £1,000,000 worth of work on these minor watercourses have been approved since the beginning of the war, but there is still a great deal to be done, and it is, in our view, very important that the drainage authorities should now be in a position to plan ahead with confidence. Under the existing legislation these grants would lapse next July. They cannot be continued any further under existing legislation, and therefore, we are asking for the powers in this Clause.
Clause 3 amends Section 15 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, which enabled us to make grants for field drainage. We propose now to amend it so that we can make similar grants for the improvement of upland farms by laying on water. As a result of the progress of the ploughing-up campaign, especially on upland farms, the farmers are having more and more to make use of the top fields of those farms for the grazing of their cattle, and especially their dairy herds, in order to free the lower fields of better agricultural land for immediate use for arable crops. That cannot be done unless adequate supplies of water are available, and, therefore, we are now asking for the sanction


of the House in order that a grant of 50 per cent. may be paid for the laying on of that water. In general, a scheme will be approved only where a county committee can certify that there will be an increase of food production and in general only in cases where the scheme affects more than one holding, so that we can get the greatest advantage from any given amount of money or labour that is involved.
Clause 4 enables advances to be made to drainage authorities in respect of minor drainage works that can be carried out by drainage authorities under Section 15 of the 1937 Act and Section 14 of the 1940 Act. Some of these schemes are private or contributory schemes; that is to say, the balance of the cost after the 50 per cent. grant has been paid is not found from the drainage rates, but from contributions from the owners of the land which benefits from the scheme. The owners of the land have a certain length of time in which to repay the cost, and some of the drainage boards that are carrying out these operations are not very large authorities and find their work impeded by not being able to finance themselves. Therefore, we propose to advance the whole of the cost to the drainage authorities as the scheme progresses, 50 per cent. being regarded as the Government grant and the remainder being recovered in due course, over a period of five years, from the drainage board and paid over to us with 4 per cent. interest. In view of the urgency of the matter, we have made, and are making, advances of this sort pending approval by the House of this particular Clause.
Clause 5 extends the provisions of Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, under which catchment boards may carry out minor drainage works outside drainage districts. Under this Clause, the catchment boards may carry out work inside a local drainage district, either with the consent of the drainage board, or, if they refuse, with my consent. The purpose is to enable one authority to carry out a scheme even though it happens to overlap the boundaries of another authority. The Clause also confers on local drainage boards in respect of schemes carried out by them within their districts powers similar to those already possessed by catchment boards; in other words, they will be able

to recover the cost of the schemes from the owners instead of from the drainage rates. The maximum expenditure for which these schemes, whether carried out by catchment boards or drainage boards, may provide is increased from £5 to £10 per acre. The amount of £10 already exists in Scotland, and the £5 was originally taken from another Act at a time when minor drainage grants were not available. It is logical now to increase the limit to £10, although the average expenditure is of the order of £2 per acre.
In view of the urgent need to extend the land drainage powers, we enacted these by Defence Regulation, but, so that Parliament should have an opportunity to confirm our action, we included this Clause in the Bill. Sub-section (4) of the Clause, which is not in the Defence Regulation, provides for the maintenance of works which have already been carried out. The House knows that drainage works cannot be left for long without deteriorating, and there has been a unanimous demand on the part of drainage authorities that something in this nature should be inserted in the Bill so that the schemes upon which a great deal of money, energy and labour has been expended shall be maintained. Of course, the question of the maintenance of drainage works after the war will have to be settled after the war, but meantime we must try to maintain the schemes which we have carried out. Therefore, this Clause is put in to deal with the war-time emergency, and the question of permanent long-term legislation will have to be dealt with after the war. Under the Defence Regulations my Department can carry out drainage operations where no other body is able to do so. At present we can recover our expenses in carrying out that work only when the land is within an internal drainage district. Clause 6 enables us to recover our expenses in respect of work which we carried out on agricultural land outside a drainage district, and it will enable us to put in hand further schemes costing about £100,000. This Clause enables us to recover our expenses, either from the landowners by way of betterment, or from the drainage board concerned. But we do not propose to recover from the owner or the drainage board more than 50 per cent. of our expenses.
Clauses 7 and 8 extend slightly the provisions of Section 2 of the Agriculture


(Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1940, which relate to the improvement of ways over fenlands. The House may remember that we found a number of cases where it was impossible to grow the heavier crops, such as potatoes and sugar beet, on a lot of this land because there were no means of getting the crops away. We were therefore authorised to spend money on improving these roads by laying down concrete. Now we have found it is necessary in a number of cases to continue work on these roads outside the internal drainage system. Some of the roads are partly outside and others wholly outside an internal drainage district. Clauses 7 and 8 bring these two different classes within the provision of Section 2 of the No. 2 Act of 1940. As the tenant of the land actually reaps the immediate benefit on any improvement to the roads, we are authorising the owner of the land, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 7, to recover from the tenant interest on his contributions in the shape of increased rent. In cases of ways wholly outside a drainage district, the Clause empowers the county councils to take over the maintenance by agreement, and this particular proposal has been agreed to by the County Councils' Association.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: As regards the 50 per cent. cost to be paid by the occupier in respect of the drainage and road schemes, will these costs be accepted under the Finance Bill as normal agricultural costs, or will they have to be borne as a capital expense?

Mr. Hudson: I could not answer that offhand, but I will find out. We now come to Clauses 9 and 10, which should be read together. Clause 9 empowers the Minister to acquire, by agreement or compulsion, land of which possession has been taken, either because it has not been cultivated or because it has not been cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and where substantial sums of money have to be spent in order to bring it back into a proper state of cultivation. The purpose of these Clauses is to preserve for the Crown the benefit of the money it has spent and the increased value arising therefrom. The land will be acquired at its original value when possession was taken. If there is any doubt, the matter will be settled by an independent arbitrator.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not the case that the Crown already has power to reserve the increased value for itself by recovering it from the original owner, or whoever actually receives the benefit of the improvement?

Mr. Hudson: Technically that is true, but experience has shown it to be a very cumbersome procedure. It is a very long-drawn-out procedure, and forms the subject of endless litigation. It is because I want a simpler procedure and a more expeditious and fairer procedure for the owner and the State, that we are bringing in this new scheme. As I said, the land will be acquired by the State at its original value when possession was taken. I hope, indeed I feel certain, that no one in the House will challenge the proposition that it is essential to take possession of land during the present emergency which is not being cultivated, or which is not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. At the moment there is a certain number of difficulties standing in my way in carrying out that imperative duty, and this particular Clause is designed to overcome them. It will be appreciated that when possession is taken of land of this nature considerable sums of money have often to be spent in bringing it back into a proper state of fertility —on fertilisers, hedging and ditching, as well as considerable sums on bringing farm buildings back into condition. The ideal is to get a new tenant to work on the farm and bring it back into condition for us. That has the effect of releasing the resources in labour and machinery of my committees for other work on derelict land for which we cannot find a tenant.
Therefore, there is every advantage, from our point of view, in getting a good fanner to take on the job, but in a number of cases it is impossible to make any such arrangement, especially in cases where the farmer would have to spend a good deal of his own capital, because at present he cannot look forward to a sufficiently long-term occupation to stand a reasonable chance of recovering his capital. At present I can only give a contract of occupation to a farmer for the duration of the war and three years after. That may be a short period or a long period, but the fact remains that it does not give enough security. Therefore, the powers for which I am asking will enable me to give a tenant better security and a longer lease. As a matter of fact I do


not anticipate that we shall have to exercise these powers very often. I think the fact that I have them, and the threat of their use, will be sufficient to compel the very small minority of recalcitrant owners to give proper security to approved tenants. My agents, the county war agricultural executive committees, are showing a natural reluctance, in spite of the necessity to increase food production, to take possession of land where they anticipate considerable expenditure of public money will be required because at present they feel the money may not be recovered, and it will be the landowner whose neglect has been locally notorious who will benefit.
There are cases where the mere fact that the committees have already started to carry out work which will improve the value of land in a particular area has led to owners attempting to sell at enhanced values or speculators buying up the land thinking they will get the increased value due to the expenditure of State money. It is in order to stop that sort of thing that I am bringing in this Bill. In some cases possession has been taken by committees of land divided into a large number of small ownerships where the tenure itself has been the main reason for the land not being properly cultivated. There are cases where the drainage system has been hopeless. If these areas are to continue in cultivation after the war, it is clear that it will be necessary to acquire the title to the land. Although these powers are wide, I do not anticipate that they will have to be exercised in every case where we have taken possession of the land, or in more than a comparatively small proportion of cases. Common lands and land belonging to the National Trust are exempt from acquisition.

Mr. MacLaren: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more fully? The Clause says:
The value of that land shall be taken to be the value which it would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was.
Has the Department any data as to the value of land in that condition at the moment?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. In every single case where we have taken possession of land on the ground that it was not being

cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry an exact record of its condition has been taken, and it will be a comparatively simple task to assess the proper value. The Act is retrospective, and there is a definite record of the value of the land at the given time.

Mr. Horabin: Does that apply to agricultural land generally? Has the Ministry any record of the value of land generally throughout the country?

Mr. Hudson: I am dealing here only with a small area about which we have definite information.
I pass to Clause 10, which deals with the disposal of the land. It is proposed that the Minister should have a free hand as to its disposal either by auction or by any other means. It says that within five years of the end of the war we have to offer it back to the original owner or to the person who would have been the owner if the Minister had not acquired the land. We are not bound to make this offer if the Minister certifies that in his opinion the result of accepting such an offer would be that the land could not or would not be properly managed and cultivated. I want to see in these cases that the expenditure of money is not allowed to be wasted, as it was after the last war, when land was handed back. There will be no obligation to make this offer to a bad landowner, neither will it be necessary to make an offer where a block of land formerly in a number of different ownerships has been taken over. I will give two or three illustrations of the sort of cases that are cropping up which have necessitated these two Clauses. One of my committees had to take possession of a 72-acre farm. The owner-occupier had allowed the land to become derelict and overgrown, and the county committee concerned had taken possession of part of the farm in the last war. It had been taken over in the last war, and, when it reverted to the original owner, it was allowed to get into this state. When the committee came to take possession in this war, they found that the only livestock consisted of one steer, one bull, one cock, and one hen. I am told the cock and hen were so wild that they were unable to be caught and had to be shot. The roofs of both houses and outbuildings were stripped of slates, and there was only one small bedroom left which was at all water-


tight. That farm is unlikely to be handed back.
Another committee had to take possession of an area of 150 acres in the fens This was divided into 61 separate fields, the smallest of which was 0.6 of an acre and the largest 4.6 acres. There were 14 different owners and 16 different occupiers. We have taken possession of the whole lot. We have cut new ditches, and the whole area has been redivided into a smaller number of fields of reasonable size. Most of the existing ditches are being filled in, new ditches have had to be cut, and we have had to instal a pumping engine and plant to deal with the drainage. The same committee have a case of 30 acres of land in five ownerships planted with derelict fruit trees and producing nothing. We have taken possession, grubbed up all the fruit trees and made it into one holding which is producing a good crop of potatoes now. These are the sort of problems which we have no power to deal with at present and which these two Clauses were designed to cover. In the case of an offer made to a good landowner, the purchase price, in default of agreement, would be settled by an arbitrator, being the price which a willing seller would be likely to obtain in the open market. If severance has been paid originally, when the land was acquired by the Minister, that amount will be deducted from the market price on sale back to the original owner if the damage by severance has been made good by his getting the land back.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Who will advise the Minister after the war?

Mr. Hudson: That is provided in the Clause—"the Minister, on the advice of the Committee."

Mr. Stewart: Is the committee in existence?

Mr. Hudson: That has been brought to my attention. We shall have to have a discussion in Committee, and meantime I will give it further thought and see whether some Amendment is necessary. These Clauses have been framed with the intention of securing that money that the State has spent shall be recovered as far as is practicable, that land which has been restored shall not be allowed to

revert after the war to its neglected state, and that the landowner shall not get any advantage from the public expenditure. On the other hand, the good landlord will be given an opportunity of getting his land back at a fair price, and the State will recover such part of its expenditure as has resulted in the enhanced value of the land.

Mr. Owen Evans: Will the Ministry be precluded from making any offer to the cultivating tenant, who may have been farming the land for many years?

Mr. Hudson: Under the Clause as it stands, the land will be offered back in the first instance to the owner. The tenant will ex hypothesi have a long lease granted by the State to encourage him to take on the job, so that he will not suffer any disadvantage, because the tenancy cannot come to an end merely because the land is handed back. Before leaving these two Clauses, I should like to make it clear that I do not expect to have to use these powers in any but a comparatively small number of cases. Just as the total number of farmers who are Being or will be dispossessed on grounds of bad husbandry is a very small proportion of the total number of farmers in this country, so there are very few owners of land who have not co-operated whole-heartedly with my committees, often at considerable expense to themselves and I am very grateful to them for their action. I think, therefore, that we can rely on the good farmers and the good landowners welcoming these particular powers.
Clause 11 deals with bees. The maintenance of bees in good health is of extreme importance, not only to honey production, but to fruit production through the proper pollination of fruit blossom. Curiously enough, the two wars have been characterised by bee diseases. In the last war it was Isle of Wight disease, and in this war it is foul brood disease. Although these powers have been taken as a war-time provision, they will be of permanent value and are, therefore, appropriate for a permanent Measure. They are based on the recommendations of a committee which was fully representative of the industry, and the national beekeepers' associations have nominated representatives to serve on the Advisory Committee which I have set up. The


Committee is now going into the question of what practical steps can be taken to deal with the foul brood disease, which is a great menace. Clauses 12 and 13 apply the provisions of the Bill to Scotland, with modifications to suit conditions in that country. Clause 14 deals with Northern Ireland, which is concerned only with the lime subsidy.
In commending the Bill to the House, I would only say that we feel that we need these supplementary provisions and that they will be useful additions to our present powers. We do not think we can get the best out of the land unless we have them. That is my excuse for troubling the House with the details of the Bill.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I want to say only a few words about this Bill, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the committee of agricultural Members which sits upstairs, of which I am temporarily the chairman. I want particularly to thank the Minister for the way in which he has consulted the agricultural Members and the trouble he and his staff have taken to meet bond fide points which have been raised. They have all been met, subject to a few minor Committee points which will be raised at a later stage. I had at one time some anxiety about the drainage Clauses, because there is not always agreement among interested parties and even authorities as to the proper and best course of dealing with a block of land which admittedly requires drainage work. There have been frequent cases under the existing powers in which work has been carried out by the order of one authority, possibly without consultation or notice to other interested parties, who have subsequently been called upon to contribute substantial sums to the cost of the work which, they say, was either unnecessary or done in the wrong way. I was a little anxious about the extension of those powers, but the Minister has explained that they are only for war purposes, and I frankly admit that whatever work is done, whether it is the best way or the second best way, in the way of dainage of land must be maintained throughout the war period, while there exists the responsibility for maintaining the production of the soil at the maximum point.
The two Clauses which introduce the greatest novelty are Clauses 9 and 10. The

Minister is right in a war Measure in trying to ensure that the State shall recover as far as possible expenditure which it undertakes in order to restore the fertility of land which, owing to past neglect, it has had to requisition. It would not be reasonable that either owners or tenants who have neglected land in the past should get any benefit from that work. I have not a good word to say on behalf of the bad landlord or the bad tenant farmer. There have been a few cases which the Minister has met in Clause 10—I do not think there are many—in which under peace conditions good owners, desirous of being good landlords, have found it impossible to get rid of admittedly bad tenants without heavy compensation, because the peace-time war agricultural committees have been unwilling to act. A number of farms to which that applies are among those which have been requisitioned, and it seemed to us that in cases like that, where the derelict state of the land was not due to the neglect of the owner, he should be given a first chance to buy back the land at a price which would reasonably cover the increase of value which was due to Government expenditure. I want to thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with that point. I think that it will cover all bond fide cases without giving an undeserved advantage to a bad landowner. The committee of agricultural Members upstairs are, subject to a few minor Amendments, in full support of the Bill, and we want again to express our gratitude to the Minister for endeavouring to meet in advance bond fide criticisms which might have wasted the time of the House unnecessarily if they had not been discussed before.

Mr. T. Smith: The Minister rightly said that this Bill contains a good deal of legislation by reference. When looking at its Clauses I found that I had to consult at least three Acts of Parliament, and it struck me that when it was on the Statute Book it will be necessary to have a consolidating Measure so that reference to the actual position can be made more easily. We regard the Bill generally as a very useful Measure, but there are one or two points with which I should like to deal. The lime subsidy is continued, but the subsidy for basic slag is stopped. The Minister has assured us that there will be no shortage of basic slag, that it will be taken in con-


junction with the ordinary phosphate fertilisers, and that there will be economy as a result of the new method. Will the price of basic slag to the farmer be increased or decreased as a result of this discontinuance of subsidy and of the new arrangements? Among agriculturists, including those who are members of war agricultural committees, there appears to be a feeling, which I think is right, that it is better to subsidise fertilisers, so that farmers can get them at a price which they can afford, and thus obtain good crops from the land, rather than to make the price of fertilisers too dear for farmers, with resultant bad crops. With regard to drainage, I do not think there will be much opposition to the new proposals in this House seeing that many years ago Parliament decreed that financial assistance must be given in order to get the land drained. In the Debates on the Act of 1940, before the present Minister of Agriculture was in office, the proposal to fix the maximum payment at £5 an acre was strongly criticised, and £10 an acre was urged in more quarters than one. Now it is pleasing to note that in this Bill the maximum has been increased to £10.
When we get to what may be termed the most controversial Clauses of the Bill, Clauses 9 and 10, what do we find? Under the 1940 Act the Minister had power to requisition land, and, indeed, a good deal has been requisitioned by the county war agricultural committees but now he will have power to acquire. There are two kinds of land which are to be acquired—or which have been acquired or requisitioned, because this Bill appears to endorse a good many things which the Minister of Agriculture has already done. First, he can acquire land which is uncultivated, and, secondly, land which has not been cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, a term which used to be applied in the abstract sense but has now become very real in the countryside
Why was land left uncultivated? In some cases, it may be, the landlord had not sufficient capital to develop it; in other cases it was left uncultivated because the landowner wished to retain it for purely pleasure purposes; and no doubt there were various other reasons. But in days like these, when all cultivation is essential, this land should be taken over. As

to land which has not been cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, I find there is a growing feeling among farmers and members of county war agricultural committees that more of this land ought to have been taken over in the national interest. I am not speaking on my own authority but on the authority of well-known agriculturists. There are three types of farms. A is the good farm, B is what we call in Yorkshire "middling," which is a term not easily defined, and C is the bad farm. Usually it is the C farms which have been taken over. Naturally the dispossessed farmer feels aggrieved and thinks that he is entitled to appeal to some authority above the county war agricultural committee, but more generally the complaints come from those who say that more of these farms which have not been properly cultivated ought to have been taken over.
I have moved about the countryside and met all classes engaged in agriculture, particularly the workers, and a number of those who are members of county war agricultural committees, and naturally we have discussed this question. I know of one committee which has; taken over 4,000 acres which were not cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and has made a success of the land in each case, simply because the committee had the capital with which to feed the land. In a time of national emergency every step necessary to win the war ought to be taken, and as we need the maximum production of food the House will not begrudge the Minister power to acquire all the land he needs for an increase in the production of food.
Next we come to perhaps the most controversial point, arising under Clause 10, and that is with regard to what will be done, when the war is over, with the land which has been cultivated by the county war agricultural committees or the State. Most of us remember what took place after the last war, and, not unnaturally, farmers are a bit suspicious of politicians. Whether we like it or not, agriculture has entered the political arena and will remain in it for a number of years, and in view of what happened in the past farmers are justified if they feel a little suspicious of Parliament and what it is likely to do. Under Clause 10 the Minister has within five years of the end of the war period to offer the land for re-sale to those who originally owned it. I wish to ask a ques-


tion about the "war period" as defined in this Bill. The end of the war period does not mean at the cessation of hostilities. In the last war we had an armistice on 11th November, 1918, but the war was not officially over, I believe, until August, 1921. I want to be clear as to what is meant by "after the war period." In the Act of 1940 it says:
The expression 'war period' means the period for which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is in force.
Does that mean that when that Act ceases to exist it is the end of the war period and that the period of five years is to be reckoned from that date? We may as well have that point cleared up to avoid future complications. I say straightaway that I should prefer the Bill to say that no land should be offered for re-sale until at least five years have elapsed from the end of the war period. A lot of funny things happen immediately after a war. Policies change like lightning; they did after the last war; and I believe that after this war this country will have to encourage a larger and more prosperous agricultural industry than we had before. I believe that the economic position of the world will demand that we must secure the maximum food production.
It would be better to have a period of five years, and no resale until we would survey the position in more stable conditions. The right hon. Gentleman might not be in office a year after the war period. The land could be offered for resale almost immediately after the war period, if the then Minister of Agriculture so desired. I would rather see the period five years, so that we could have a stable time. Is the land to be handed back to the people who have neglected it? I still retain my sense of humour, and I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in harness again. He and I have made many speeches inside and outside this House, and I suppose we should not like to be reminded of all of them. I remember a Debate on 6th February, 1940, when we were putting on the Statute Book the three-years Clause. One of the strongest speeches made against the proposal was made by my hon. Friend. It was a good speech, and I agreed with every word of it. He said:
They can create a contract with a tenant for the duration of the war, they can pour money into the land in the shape of fertilisers,

drainage, and so forth, but the Minister takes power at the end of three years to hand back that reconditioned land to the farmer who neglected it before the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1940; col. 93, Vol. 357.]

Mr. Hudson: Not to the farmer.

Mr. Smith: I am quoting words which were used in that speech in 1940. My hon. Friend said that it would be a pity if the land were handed back to those who had neglected it. What is the position? As I read the Bill, the Minister will first of all hand the land back to the person who had it when it was acquired. If that owner cannot be traced, other proposals are put forward. Can the State or the county agricultural committee still retain the land, or will it have to be offered by auction in the open market? What is likely to happen is that if the State has made a success of the land and the prospects of cultivating the land are reasonable, the original owner will turn up and accept the offer. If the owner sees that the land in question will not be a good economic proposition and he does not wish to acquire it, which will be a distinct possibility, what will happen?

Mr. Hudson: It will be within my discretion.

Mr. Smith: Will it mean that the State is saddled with uneconomic propositions in the shape of less prosperous land while the good land will be handed back to its owners? Let us not forget that landowners are very shrewd people. One needs to look ahead. I do not want the State to hand over economic and prosperous land to private ownership in those circumstances. Of course, it may be that before this resale takes place the agricultural land of the country will all be nationalised.
I cannot find in any Act of Parliament what is to be the duration of life of the county war agricultural committees. The Bill implies that the committees are to remain in existence for a considerable time. They are to advise the Minister regarding certain of these Clauses. The committees have justified themselves and should be kept in existence as long as possible. They will have a steadying influence upon Parliament in declarations of agricultural policy, and the result may be to avoid lightning changes in policy such as took place after the last war, when a good many tenant farmers were


ruined because decontrol took place four years before it was expected. The committees have done good work and ought to remain in existence.
On the whole, we regard the Bill as useful and necessary in these days, although it does not make any fundamental changes in agricultural policy. We shall expedite its passage. I say that, subject to any discussion that may take place upon the Committee stage.

Mr. Lambert: This is a small Measure, but the success of its fertility Clauses must rest upon one factor —labour. I warn the Minister, the Government and the House that if more agricultural labourers are withdrawn from the land, there will be less food for the nation. The agricultural labourer is the most skilled of workers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Colonel Clifton Brown): The question of agricultural workers is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Lambert: I was trying to point out that the success of the Bill depends upon that factor. If the Minister withdraws 10,000 men from the land, his Bill will have very small chance of success. I wish to say, too, that if this Bill is to be a success we must have the wage question settled. I do not wish to go further into that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—

Mr. Quibell: On a point of Order. Is it not in Order for hon. Members who wish to take part in this Debate to refer to questions of man-power, for instance, to the fact that while there is adequate machinery for drainage in some areas, the men to work it have been taken away? Surely in such a case we can connect the question of man-power with that of machinery? This Bill asks for further powers, but the powers already existing cannot be fully exercised in the absence of the men to operate the machines, some of which in my own constituency are standing idle.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members must not refer to the general question of man-power. Any specific case bearing on this particular point would, of course, be a different matter.

Mr. Lambert: I can easily keep myself in Order. The whole point of this Bill

depends on labour. The liming and drainage of land are two very arduous occupations. Spreading lime on the land is a dirty job which cannot be done by women. It is no use trying to tell us that we can lime or drain land by using female labour. I know something about it, because in our part of the world we have had a considerable number of these young women who have been turned out on the land.
I would like now to refer to a point mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite, namely, the question of the derelict land that has been taken over. Here I would like to pay my tribute to the agricultural committee in the county of Devon. They are practical men and have done splendid work. The committee is presided over by a very competent chairman, and has taken the greatest possible interest in food production. They have reclaimed a large amount of land and have utilised the services of one of the staff of the Seale Hayne Agricultural College—of which I happen to be chairman—and have done their work extremely well. No less than 5,000 acres of land which formerly was not cultivated have been taken over, and are now either growing crops or being prepared for growing crops. About 1,200 acres of potatoes are growing on land which formerly grew nothing but ferns and things of that sort. I am entirely in favour of utilising land for such a purpose, but when hon. Gentlemen ask what is to happen to the land after the war, I reply that that will depend entirely upon the price of produce. If this country is wise, it will not do as was done after the last war and grossly betray the agricultural interests, because there has been no greater betrayal in our Parliamentary history than to have passed a Bill one year and repealed it the next.
I hope the country will see to it that this land which has not been cultivated for generations because of low prices will be able to remain in cultivation. I should be very glad if some of these war-time planners, about whom we hear so much and who are able to plan everybody's business but their own, would give us their views on such an important subject. Good cultivation is essential. Why has the land not been cultivated? Because of prices. The Minister now says he is going to take this land over. I wish him joy of it, because again his success or otherwise


will depend entirely upon the prices of agricultural produce. But what is to happen to the land which is prejudiced by to-day's cultivation? I would rather like an answer to that, and perhaps we shall get it in Committee. I know of land in Devonshire which was growing gorse and rushes and which has now been taken over and ploughed up. It has quite a good crop on it; I saw a piece the other day with at least six or seven tons of potatoes and 40 bushels of oats per acre. What will happen to that land afterwards? Is it to be left lying fallow, or is it to be re-seeded? That question will have to be resolved. I know this land, I live within a few miles of it, and I can see that unless prices are such that it can continue to be cultivated, the owners of the land may be considerably prejudiced. If they had been neglecting it or cultivating it badly, I should have nothing to say, but otherwise what is to happen to it after the war?
Another case in point is Hatherleigh Moor. Something like 170 acres have been ploughed up, and there are now about 100 acres of potatoes and 50 acres of oats. Next year there will be another 125 acres. What is to happen to that? Of course, a common has always been a bone of contention. I know that, because I have two or three commons in my constituency. For 500 years Hatherleigh Moor has not been cultivated; it has had a few ponies on it and a cow or two near the villages, but what is to happen to it now it has been taken over? I asked the officer who came from the Seale Hayne Agricultural College a question about costs. He said that it was just possible for them to pay their way, with the £2 an acre subsidy for ploughing up, at the present prices of oats and potatoes. But is this land afterwards to revert to pasture, or is it to revert to a common? I do not know whether the Government have any idea; it may not be fair to ask them now, but these are questions which must come up. I know that we have not yet seen the end of this terrible war, but I do ask the Government that land which has been taken over and cultivated by the agricultural committees should at any rate be restored to the owner in as good a condition as before it was ploughed. If you plough land and stimulate it with artificial manure, it is bound to be impoverished. The Minister may be able

to give us some little information about that point.
I am delighted to see in the Bill—it is long overdue—this provision dealing with bees. I happen to be a bee-keeper myself, though I am not very fond of handling them. We have had in our district this foul pest, and if the Minister will take any steps to protect bee-keepers and prevent this disease from spreading, he will have done a really great work, not only for the protection of honey but in providing a good bee stock, because wherever you have a good bee stock you get a considerable amount of fruit blossom and fruit. Therefore, I welcome this Bill so far as it goes. As I said when I started, it will depend entirely on labour. If you withdraw more labour, you will not get this Bill to be a success.

Major Owen(Carnarvon): I agree with a good deal of what the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has said with regard to the difficulties in carrying out such measures as are foreshadowed in this Bill, owing to the shortage of labour. At the same time, I feel certain that the agricultural community as a whole will be glad that arrangements have been made in the Bill to continue the lime subsidy until 1944, and also to continue the work of drainage which is so sorely needed in this country. What particularly appeal to me are what appear to have appealed to others—Clauses 9 and 10. A great deal of Government money has been spent in recent years to help agriculture, but correspondingly with what the State has spent, the farmer has had to find a great deal of extra money. In Clauses 9 and 10 the Minister, very rightly and very properly, takes steps to see that, where direct money has been spent on improving land, the State must be able to recover at a future date. That is a very proper thing to do, but what is the position of the farmer? Has he any security as a tenant farmer that he will be able to benefit by what he will have put into the land in the last few years? I am afraid that that is not the case. The House will remember that during the last two years of the last war, and for several years afterwards, the tenant farmer was exploited by speculators. He was forced either to leave his farm or to purchase it at an enhanced price and borrow money at very high rates of interest. What hap-


pened was that in scores, in hundreds, of cases, farmers became bankrupt. That was a serious loss, in fact it was a calamity, so far as food production in this country was concerned.
The question may be asked, What has this got to do with the present Bill? I wrote some time ago to the Minister drawing his attention to an instance in my constituency. In the letter I wrote to him I pointed out that it had been the custom in our part of the world that whenever an estate was put up for sale the tenant farmer was always given an opportunity of negotiating for the purchase of his farm. I warned him that in this particular case every application by a tenant to purchase his own farm had been turned down absolutely, and I foreshadowed that that might lead to speculators coming in, purchasing the land, having no connection with the farms and knowing nothing about the land. I was assured by the Minister that I need not worry, that the Agricultural Holdings Acts were sufficient protection for the tenant farmer.
I am afraid that my warning has now come true. The sale of this estate took place three weeks ago. It was divided into two portions. Land consisting of about 18 holdings amounting to some 1,100 acres was first sold. The tenant farmers were not allowed to bid separately; it was sold as a whole. But I had persuaded the tenant farmers to combine together and appoint one from among themselves to bid for the whole of this estate. They were, in fact, the best people to judge the value of that land. This farmer who represented his fellow farmers was able to go only to a certain amount, but it was sold to a local resident. He is, I am glad to say, perfectly ready to negotiate with the tenants about their own farms. But the second portion was sold in the afternoon to a firm of London auctioneers who refused to disclose the name of the purchaser. Whether they were purchasing it for themselves or whether they were purchasing it for another buyer never transpired. Imagine my surprise to see in the local paper last week-end a notice that this portion is to be put up for sale again on 3rd November next in separate lots. I do not want to say anything about this firm of auctioneers—I do not

know them—but they are complete strangers. They have no interest in the agriculture of that area nor in the production of food in that area. They are there solely to make a profit out of the sale of that land. I was rung up by one of the tenants, who told me that his farm, which is the biggest in that area, had been valued for probate at £6,000. He is calmly asked to pay £10,000 for it, and part of the best land he has is to be taken away from him.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question? I sympathise with the point of view that my hon. and gallant Friend is putting, but surely he is in error in stating the position of the tenants. They are absolutely safeguarded by the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and they cannot be turned out or charged a higher rent.

Major Owen: My Noble Friend is evidently misinformed. The whole object of this sale on 3rd November is that if the auctioneers cannot get the price they want, they can give 12 months' notice to the tenant on 13th November; and the tenant has no choice Let me give another example of the kind of prices being asked for land in that area. I know of a little holding there, the rent of which is £16 per annum. It was vacant quite a long time, because it is poor land and the buildings are poor, but it is now in occupation. The tenant thought he would be able to buy this land at something like £400 or £500, which is a reasonable price for it. I do not speak without knowledge, for I myself own land in that part of the country. But for that land he is asked £2,000. That is a scandal. If the owner of that land can have his way, he will charge £80 a year rent, which is fantastic I appeal to the Minister—who is not now present—to take action for the sake of food production in this country; for the sake of the farming industry, not now but after the war; for the sake of the farmers, who have lived for generations on their own farms. They are part and parcel of the place, yet speculators from London can come down and buy several farms, and in less than six weeks put them up again at a profit for themselves. They are capitalising what the farmer has done, and putting the profits into their own pockets and avoiding taxation. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary must sympathise with the case that I am putting, and I


ask him and the Minister to take steps immediately. If they cannot do it under this Bill, let them do it under the Defence Regulations. If that is not done agriculture will be ruined, as it was after the last war.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I think everyone in the House fully sympathises with the illustration given by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen). These land speculators, who have bought land in order to divide up an estate and sell it again, thus exploiting agriculture, have done greater disservice to agriculture than anybody else has done.
I support the Bill, but there are one or two points that I would like to put to the Minister. I listened to his speech with considerable interest, and I noted with pleasure the largely increased production of food from the land this year. He mentioned wheat and potatoes. The potatoes are there, but they are still in the ground. We want labour to get them from the ground into the clamp. I hope that Clause 1, which refers to the cessation of the subsidy on basic slag and the cessation of the abolition of the functions of the Land Fertility Committee, docs not indicate a reversal of the Government's policy with regard to assistance to agriculture by means of the provision of fertilisers. The best way to help the farmer is by helping him to help himself. It is immaterial to the finances of a farmer whether he sows four quarters of wheat at £3 a quarter and makes £12, or whether he sows five quarters at £2 10s. a quarter and makes £12 10s.; but it is very material to the country at present that our land should produce five quarters of wheat per acre instead of four. I hope that the policy of providing fertilisers, and so helping the farmer to help himself, will not be discontinued by the Government. I recognise that help is being given in other directions to phosphatic manures, but I hope that the general policy of stimulating the farmer to increase the quantity of fertilisers he uses will not be discontinued.
The only other Clauses with which I want to deal are those relating to land drainage. I have been associated during the whole of my life with the Fen country, the fertility of which depends on the efficient drainage of the land. I can say very definitely that there is no other agri-

culture measure which will increase production so much as efficient drainage of the land, and I whole-heartedly support those Clauses. The Bill gives power to the Minister to extend drainage schemes, through the agency of the catchment boards. That is all to the good, but what about the financial side of these schemes? The Government, very generously, are making a 50 per cent. grant in order to encourage the carrying out of such schemes: but there is the remaining 50 per cent., which, under the Bill, will have to be paid by the occupier. Will that amount which is paid by the occupier, who is compelled to carry out the drainage schemes, be allowed by the Inland Revenue Commissioners as essential farming costs, or will it have to be borne out of capital? I understand that if that expenditure is merely for the maintenance of existing work it is allowable, but not if it is new work. That is a very important point. To-day, occupiers of land are unable, out of the small amount of money which is left to them after paying taxation, to meet the expense of these essential drainage schemes. I hope that the Minister will attend to that, and that he will at the same time provide the roads which are essential to agriculture.
I would like to clear up one point made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) a few moments ago. The position, as I understand it, is that the owner of land can give a tenant notice at any time, but the owner has to pay for the disturbance. He has to pay a year's rent, plus the cost of disturbance, and that in itself should prevent an ordinary owner of land from giving a tenant notice.
These Clauses are essential at the present time to protect the Government in regard to their expenditure of money to bring derelict land into cultivation. We accept them; they are essential. On the question as to whether permission should be given to the previous owner to recover the land, criticism has been made as to whether it is right to give back land that had been taken away. It is not the landlord who is farming. The landlord has let his land to a tenant who has security of tenure, but if the tenant allows the land to become derelict, it is not the fault of the landlord, and he is not in any way responsible for it. After money had been spent upon the land by the State to bring it back into cultivation, a landlord would


in no circumstances, having had his land restored to cultivation and let to a good tenant, remove that tenant, and the good tenant who had come in would be sure that he would be allowed to remain there. The landlord would be only too pleased to get rid of a bad tenant and to have acquired a new and a good tenant. With these words I commend this Bill and congratulate the Minister upon having brought it forward.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I saw in an agricultural paper that this Bill was looked upon as one worthy of a Fascist dictatorship. I do not take that view about the Bill. The Minister had consultations, and I think that on the whole these very drastic Clauses are reasonably controlled, and, what is more, that it is in the interests of the Government of the day not to let agriculture down, otherwise they will not get back the money they have put into the land when they try to sell it again. The position before the Minister and the country will be that, if they let agriculture down as they did after the last war and try to sell the land which they have requisitioned to the highest bidder, the owner in nine cases out of ten will not have any money. There will be very little money in the country, and therefore it will be a safeguard if the Government requisition land. I do not know whether it may be called land nationalisation or not, but it would be a safeguard if the Government desire to have a flourishing agriculture in this country.
The only way for Government policy to keep agriculture flourishing is to keep up the price of the products of the land. Surely this is the time when all parties should determine not to let agriculture down as was done after the last war, and should get together and make a permanent policy, or one for five or ten years, to keep up the prices of agricultural produce. It is all very well, when you suddenly come to war and find that agriculture has been let down, to say you must blame someone. It is easy to blame someone, and, of course, it is the landowner who is usually blamed. What were the conditions with which the landowner had to contend? He could not let his farms at a rent which enabled him to repair the buildings. It is essential to keep the price of agricultural produce up to a reasonable level. I do not care

whether it is by protection, or subsidy, or by other means that you want to provide cheap food for the people, but you cannot have a flourishing agriculture if the prices are not fair prices to enable those who cultivate the land to live upon it. I received a letter this morning from a landowner and constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who says:
I have a map of this Estate of 100 years ago showing every field cultivated, and all ponds cleaned out. Then owing to the then Government policy much of this ground became unlettable. My father asked the late Mr. Heywood Johnstone, M.P. then, to obtain for him the advice of the Board of Agriculture. An expert was sent down who told my father the policy of the Government was to provide cheap food for the people, and that England was a manufacturing country, and that the only thing he could suggest was to pull out the gates and declare the land 'void' so as to pay no rates or taxes on it.

Earl Winterton: As my constituency has been referred to, I think I know the gentleman whom my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I am afraid I do not regard him as typical of Sussex landlords.

Brig.-General Brown: We are perhaps both of the same opinion, but I only quote the latter to show that, if we are to keep a flourishing agriculture, we must not do what we have been doing for the last 100 years and let agriculture down. At the end of this war, which I am afraid will not be as soon as some of us hoped, there will be very little money. Under this Bill owners have to pay a share of the money every year for five years and to pay back, and quite rightly, the money that the Government put into their land if they want to recover the land. The farmers may or may not be able to pay the same amount of rent as they do now, but it is absolutely essential that another Bill should be brought forward, especially as this Bill does not deal with land taken over by the Defence Forces.
There are many details in regard to which this Bill will be required to be amended to keep it up to date, and such a Bill is bound to be brought forward. It is essential for agriculture that there should be a better scheme of credits. Money should be made available to enable the land to be taken back and maintained and drained, and there ought to be a more satisfactory scheme of credits at a cheaper rate of interest than has to


be paid now. This is absolutely essential if this or any other Bill is to help agriculture in the future. As landowners we want more than anyone else to see the land of England produce every possible crop. We shall not object to being told after a fair trial of bad farming, but we hope that all parties in this country will get together and formulate a policy to keep the land in a productive state and see that agriculture is not let down after this war as it was after the last war.

Mr. Clement Davies: One of the most beneficent Acts relating to agriculture was the Act which was passed in 1937 and which the Minister now proposes to extend. I think it was the first Act which really turned the mind of the farmer to pure agriculture. Other Acts preceding it had been subsidies upon stock or cereals. It was payment for production instead of encouraging farmers to better farming, and the question to which the House ought to address itself to-day is, What is the value of this Bill towards the increase in production which is so needed? Interesting as are the questions which are raised by Clauses 9 and 10, they are only incidental. The Clauses which really matter are the preceding Clauses, dealing with lime—unfortunately, basic slag has been let go— and drainage. For a few moments I want to direct the attention of the House to the lime position. A very heavy call is being made on the land at this moment for the production of cereals, especially wheat. Unfortunately, we have not the same facilities for importing fertilisers as we had prior to the outbreak of the war, and I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the efforts being made to get phosphates from America under the Lease-Lend Act. He also referred to sulphate of ammonia and boosters of that kind, but it must be remembered that they are boosters. They have not the same value as either phosphate or lime.
Fortunately, in this country there is no limit to the amount of limestone which is available. One has only to tour the limestone areas to see the value that they have been to agriculture throughout the centuries. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that some have been worked for 2,000 years or more, and therefore it is interesting to inquire into what is being done in order to increase the amount of lime production and the use of more lime upon the

land. I heard with pleasure the Minister say that more machines are being put into operation for getting ground lime. Unfortunately, ground lime is not as popular with the farmer as burnt lime, but failing burnt lime we must do the best we can in the short time that is available. The Minister also said that there will be an increase this year of approximately 70 per cent. more lime than last year. I hope that increase will be there, because my information is that it will not, for the three reasons which were in the mind of the Minister when he spoke—labour, fuel and transport. So far as my information goes, the total amount of lime put down last year, upon which subsidy was paid and upon which the House is entitled to have information, was only 1,250,000 tons.
One can realise more or less from the Memorandum which precedes the Bill what is expected to be done this year. The total amount thought to be necessary will be 1,500,000 tons. Subsidy is based not merely on the cost of lime at the kiln, but also on the cost of transport, which varies from place to place, but roughly the cost of lime at the kiln is 26s. or 27s. a ton, and with the cost of transport added, about 35s. That means a subsidy of roughly 17s. or 18s., so that the amount of lime estimated to be put down this year will be under 2,000,000 tons. I am almost certain that the information in the possession of the Minister is that the shortage of lime in the whole country, which is necessary to bring the land into fruitful cultivation by getting rid of acidity, is no less than 20,000,000 tons. It is no good dealing with these matters in this way. What we and the Minister are asking for at the moment is increased production. It is no good merely telling farmers to plough. If their fields are deficient in lime, you must follow them up and say, "You must put lime down. If you cannot do it, we will."

Earl Winterton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Weald of Sussex—to give only one example—there are hundreds, if not thousands, of old lime kilns on farms which could be made use of by means of wood fuel?

Mr. Davies: I am much obliged to the Noble Lord, but I was coming to that. I was dealing with the general question and intended to particularise in a moment.


There is any amount of limestone in the country which is not being utilised. May I tell the House something of my experiences in my own county? On the North -West corner of Montgomery there is a vast limestone hill, one of the biggest in the whole of the British Isles, where limestone has been worked for centuries. There are old, small kilns such as the Noble Lord has mentioned, and there are also modern kilns, capable of turning out 100 tons of burnt lime a day. That area can supply the requirements of the whole of the county of Montgomery, North Cardigan, Radnor, a large part of Shropshire and a large part of Denbigh.
So concerned was I about the production of lime that in conjunction with my own war agricultural committee I went over the limestone quarry in August. There was a certain amount of ground lime available, but more could be made available if there was more machinery. Because machinery had not been forthcoming, some effort had been made to increase the amount of lime by sending the rock five or six miles away to be ground, lifted and put into sacks. The position was that only 12 men were working in the main quarry and 18 more men were wanted in order to supply the needs of the farmers. The 12 men were quarrying limestone not for the purposes of agriculture, but to provide ballast for railways and aerodromes No encouragement has been given to the company to go in for lime-burning. The managing director told me that he was making sufficient money as it was by providing ballast, but he was willing to do all that he could if he was given the men. He has been asking for 18 men for weeks and has not been able to get one. When I asked him about coke for the lime-burning, he showed me a letter from the coke suppliers who had been supplying him for 20 years, and the letter was to the effect that they could not enter into a further contract with him; they had no reserves and no stock, and although his priority had gone up two places, it was still a low one; in the circumstances, as he was an old customer, they would do what they could for him, but could not give any guarantee. Therefore, there was no labour for the quarry and no coke for the lime-burning.
I will mention one other little incident to show the extent to which this matter has been neglected. I asked the managing

director whether he had had any trouble with regard to the black-out, and he replied that he had been fined. The amount of glow that comes from a kiln, whether it be an old one or a modern one, is so small that it does not matter. What is it compared with the glow from some of the big works that can be seen for 50 miles? In order to help the farmers, as he had no coke he used coal, and this made a little more flame. He was summoned by the country policeman, taken before the country bench, and fined £10. What hurt him was that he was lectured by the country bench, who said, "You should not do it." He said, "Very well, you will go without your lime." There has not been a match put to the kilns since. At a time when every bit of food is required, at a time when the Minister asks for more and more ploughing, is this the way in which these matters are to be treated? The Ministry of Agriculture, through the county war agricultural committees, should take much more drastic steps and deal with this thing nationally. The third thing mentioned by the Minister was the lack of transport. I have found that there is the same lack of transport in my county. The four lorries which the county committee could use were being used by them for their own purposes, to carry lime to the tops of the hills of which photographs have appeared in every illustrated newspaper to show how the county committee has ploughed up land that has not been ploughed for 1,000 years. The lorries were not being used to carry lime to the more productive fields already in the hands of the farmers. In the meantime, all around there are Army lorries doing nothing. Why cannot they be used for transporting the lime necessary for the production of food? There ought to be a national effort under this Bill. A direction ought to be given to the county committees to have the land analysed, and where there is a deficiency of lime, to have lime supplied. The lime should be produced, either in burnt or ground form, and provision should be made for its quarrying and for its transport to the farmers. Unless these things are done, it is useless to ask the farmers to produce more; unless they are done, production; instead of going up, will go down.

Colonel Mills: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has done his best


to introduce a just and useful Bill, and I congratulate him on his success. There are two points of principle in connection with Clauses 9 and 10, which deal with the acquisition of land by the Minister and its resale, which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend in the hope that I shall receive an assurance that he will look into these points between now and the Committee stage of the Bill, and, if necessary, introduce words to establish the principles clearly. Clause 9 gives the Minister power for certain reasons to buy land which has been requisitioned for agricultural purposes, with the object of preserving for the Crown the benefit of any increase in agricultural value. I think the context of the Clause makes it clear that it is the increase in the agricultural value which is contemplated, but the word "agricultural" does not appear in Sub-section (1, c) of the Clause, where the reference is simply to the value of the land, and I think it might be well if the word "agricultural" were inserted at a later stage.
With regard to Clause 10, which deals with the resale of the land, there are safeguards on the Minister's side as to the price factors which are to be taken into consideration on resale. Betterment is, very rightly, to be considered; I emphasise here also that this should be defined as agricultural betterment. Again, if the owner of the land on the orginal sale obtained compensation in respect of severance from, or injurious affection of, other land, this is to be allowed for on resale. Clearly, that safeguard covers compensation paid for the loss of such things as amenity, or sporting value, or potential or actual building value, and the Minister and the public purse are safeguarded. But the principle I want to establish is this, that the safeguard should be mutual, and the original seller should be entitled to it also. The Minister referred only to under-cultivated land, but I think that much of the land which he may have to acquire in this way and for this purpose will often, perhaps usually, be marginal or sub-marginal land, sandy heather land, or the thinnest of soils on the top of hills and downs. Except for the war, this land would not be cultivated, although it might have much value for other purposes. If the owner has behaved properly about it, and has sold the land as part of our war effort as its low agricultural value, without regard for amenity or

sporting or building values, surely he is entitled to buy it back on resale on the same basis, paying a bit more if the land has been improved for agricultural purposes, a bit less if it has deteriorated. He should not be asked to run the risk of having to buy it back at building values which were not included or allowed for in the original sale. This would be very unfair to him. Such land as I have described has often considerable building values, although its value for agricultural purposes may be trivial. I am afraid that the reference to the price which a willing seller would be likely to obtain in the open market might later be held to compel the Minister to try and obtain the full building value for which he has not paid. I hope my right hon. Friend will tell the House that what he has in mind is improvement in agricultural value, and that a resale of land will be made on the same basis as that on which he acquired it.

Mr. Price: I remember that in the course of a Debate on an agricultural Bill last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that we could not dig for victory with a pair of Treasury scissors. I think that this Bill does something to bury the Treasury scissors which were so apparent on that occasion—at least so far as land drainage is concerned. But, frankly, I am not happy with Clause 1 of the Bill. This Clause does away with the subsidy on basic slag. Basic slag is a very important item to the farmer, and I wish to know what effect this provision will have upon its future price. So far as I can see, the result will be that we shall have to pay higher prices for basic slag. At the moment, under the Lease-Lend Act, the United States are providing us with considerable quantities of superphosphates, and one hopes that these manures may be offered to the farmer at a reasonable price. That being so, it will bring about a somewhat difficult position, because basic slag is in very short supply, and the agricultural war executive committees are rationing it very carefully. In my county the use of basic slag has been confined to newly ploughed-up land producing wheat and beans, and it cannot as yet be used for any other purpose. Basic slag is an alkaline manure, and, as the House is no doubt aware, on certain types of heavy clay land there is an acid


reaction on the top soil. Therefore, to use superphosphates upon land which is acid may have serious consequences.

Mr. Hudson: What about lime?

Mr. Price: The answer to that has been given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). What he said makes the matter far more serious. I did not think the problem was as bad as he has suggested, although I put in an order for lime three months ago and have only just had it delivered. This makes the position far worse, and it seems to me that the Minister must do something about it. He must ginger up the production of lime. Moreover, is it not possible for us to import basic slag from the United States? Possibly our American friends, having taken steps to supply us with superphosphates, might be able to help us in this respect too. The question of soil fertility is all-important. We are ploughing up our pasture right and left, but we can only crop them for a few years as we are doing. I am glad to hear that some agricultural committees realise the importance of this problem, and my county agricultural committee have been encouraging farmers to ley-down for one year land which has been for long ploughed up. To my mind, there are three ways in which we can fight against the danger of losing the fertility of our soil. The first method is by leying, the second is by permitting at least one year's grazing after leying, and the third is by artificial manures. Nitrogenous manures can be used up to a point, but it is very important to have a balance in manures, because without it you cannot restore the fertility of the soil. Nitrogenous fertilisers alone will not do it; there must be the necessary balance with phosphate of the right kind. I apologise to the House for having gone into the chemical aspects of agriculture, but the fact remains that this subject needs careful investigation. So I give this as a warning to the Minister and to the agricultural committees.
In general, the other Clauses of the Bill seem to be satisfactory. Clause 5, and the others which follow, should be advantageous so far as land drainage is concerned. There is still the problem of internal drainage boards which have not done their duty and confronted the problems which face them. Perhaps this is

because they are under the influence of people who do not realise the importance of this work. I wish to ask the Minister whether, as a result of this Bill, it will be possible for the catchment boards to override these bodies, and go into the internal drainage board districts to carry out this work of national importance. The Minister gave us some figures of the money spent on minor watercourses. But there is other work of special importance. I think the opening-up of upland ditches, and the relaying of drains altogether in some cases, is most important. I should like to have some figures in regard to the money that has been spent in the last year upon upland drainage.
I quite agree, too, with the two Clauses dealing with resale to the owners of land that has been requisitioned. Anything which will have the effect of preventing speculation in land is in the right direction. I heard of a case not long ago of a farm that was badly farmed. The agricultural committee had to take it over and deal with it. It was going to arrange with a neighbouring farmer, a good man, to take it over. Immediately the original owner heard it he went off and sold it at a fairly high price to some person, obviously a speculator, who tried to hold it and sell it again to the man with whom the committee was trying to arrange to take it over. That kind of speculation must be stopped—of men who are in danger having their land requisitioned trying to get out at a high price and cashing-in on the improved position of agriculture as a result of the great stabilisation of prices, and getting out in that way. If the Bill is not sufficiently strong in this respect, it will have to be looked into in Committee, but superficially it seems to me that the Minister has sufficient discretionary powers as to selling the land after the war, when it is not necessary to retain control. Of course, we never know what may happen, but I hope that after the war there will be far greater public control over land and over farming than there has ever been before. I do not want to see the war agricultural committees go out of business. They have done such good work that we must continue their control in some way or other, and anything that will stop speculation in land, sucking the life blood out of the industry, will have my full support, and the Bill, which I think does something in this direction, will have my support, too.

Mr. Snadden: I believe I am the only Scottish Member present but that does not mean I am going to raise only Scottish points. I feel strongly in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who pointed out that, although Clauses 9 and 10 are regarded by the majority of Members as the most important Clauses in the Bill, it must not be assumed that the others are necessarily unimportant. I think very little exception can be taken to those Clauses, but I regard Clause 1 as one of the most important because it deals with the very important question of soil fertility. This question of soil fertility is the key to our agricultural production. Liming is of the most tremendous consequence and I want to draw from the Secretary of State for Scotland an assurance that our lime supplies are sufficient to meet the demand which is coming upon us through his own policy.
I also want to suggest to him, and to the Minister of Agriculture, that this is the time to enter upon a campaign for the mass liming of the soil of Britain. In Scotland we have added 450,000 acres, or some 30 per cent., to our tillage land since the war began, but we are still below the acreage that we had under tillage at the end of the last war. This year we are called upon to provide a further 200,000 acres. In order to do that we shall have to take two or three straw crops running. I am doing it on my own land and I know what it means. Fertility of the soil to-day is the writing on the wall. How can it be maintained? I should say it can be maintained by the application of farmyard manure, a ley system of farming plus lime on a properly drained soil. We in Scotland have a particular claim in regard to lime. We have an enormously high rainfall, and there is great loss owing to drainage away, and although substantially increased use has been made of lime since the Land Fertility Scheme came in, I question whether the volume now applied even copes with current losses. It is well to remember, especially having regard to the appeals of the Minister to apply more nitrogen, that I cwt. of sulphate of ammonia applied requires 1 cwt. of lime in order to set free that nitrogen for plant growth. Lime is the key to balanced manuring. Even stock demand it, especially the milk cow. It has a very

definite bearing on our milk supply. Everyone knows that milk from permanent pasture tends to fall away because farmers generally neglect the liming of that pasture. In spite of the work of the Land Fertility Committee, I do not think it is any exaggeration to say, in relation to the block of land requiring lime, that up to date our application has been really negligible.
Having asked the Secretary of State to consider a scheme for mass liming, of course the question of supply arises. The supply in 1940 was adequate, but in 1941 that was not so. The Government have subsidised limestone enterprises and I would like the Secretary of State to tell us what the prospects are in connection with that scheme. I presume there is no hope of extending it to burnt lime. We can extend the production of ground limestone, but I do not think we are doing it thoroughly enough. The Land Fertility Committee is to go, and I would like to take this opportunity of reiterating what I am sure has been said before, that we are indebted to the Chairman, Lord Cranworth, for the work he has done on that committee.
I appreciate the reasons for the repeal of the basic slag subsidy. I assume this has been done in order to bring about a more logical price structure for all phosphatic fertilisers, but I cannot help regretting that this has been found necessary. The anti-acid effect of high grade slag is of the highest value and this brings out again the need for great quantities of lime. Can the Minister say whether the 1940-41 output will be maintained and even expanded? I am anxious about the future of this grand fertiliser. Is it to come along on an ever-expanding scale? The Minister of Agriculture explained in his speech, on which I congratulate him, what the water supply Clause means. But we Scots are rather suspicious of our own Ministers, and when I look at the Scottish Clause of the Bill I see that the Secretary of State puts in different words. He says, "installation of water supply thereto." Having regard to the definition of the word "installation," does that mean that no grant will be given in respect of any improvements to existing supplies? If I were asked by any agriculturist what was the greatest hindrance and handicap to an efficient farming system, I should


probably surprise him by telling him that it was lack of watering facilities. Lack of drainage is important, but fields without water are of no use for stock, and if we are to get into a system of ley farming, every field must have its water supply. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that the conditions laid down by the Minister will not apply only to land to which stock have been driven—by the plough policy—because if so it will not apply to Scotland to any great extent.
I would like to bring up a point which I consider important with regard to Clauses 9 and 10. These are probably the most important, and certainly the most interesting, Clauses in the Bill. They give the Minister power to acquire land under certain conditions and to resell the land within five years of the end of the war, or to retain it if the owner does not desire it or if the Minister has reason to believe that it will not be properly cultivated. Nobody can take exception to the principle underlying these Clauses. War agricultural committees will welcome these powers, for I know committees in Scotland which have been very uncomfortable because they have been pouring money into these holdings. It is right that the State should be recouped where betterment has taken place and that the State should endeavour to prevent land returning to the derelict state in which it was before it was requisitioned. It is equally right that where acquisition takes place the owner should be given a fair deal. There should be no suggestion of victimisation. I cannot help feeling that the owner is at a serious disadvantage in this business of so-called arbitration. He has been caught unawares because when his land was requisitioned he was never told that acquisition might take place.
I believe that it could be proved that the owner is completely in the hands of the Minister. As an agriculturist, I have no use for badly farmed land, but I do not want it to go out from this House that we have taken advantage of our position through the war because the owner has been driven to say, "I suppose I must agree to that and I cannot do anything about it." When the land is requisitioned by the Minister the war agricultural committee do not necessarily

make a record or survey of it on the date of its requisition. A little later, probably months afterwards, along comes a gentleman who is called a "man of skill." I like that expression, but I am not sure what it means. He comes along with his friends on the agricultural committee, and naturally the committee wish to justify the fact that they ejected the tenant. Consequently the man of skill, who arrives months after the requisitioning, has no knowledge of what the farm looked like when it was requisitioned, and he is driven back to the original records of the agricultural committee. After the land has been requisitioned the arbitrator comes along, not for the purpose of valuing the land, but in order to fulfil the obligations under the Compensation Act with regard to rental. When that is done the Government come along and acquire the land under this Bill. Arbitration will follow at a future date and the arbitrator will be in an even worse position because months or even years will have passed and he will be driven back to the original survey made when the land was requisitioned. The owner had no representative present when the survey was made on requisition, and all he could do was to agree or disagree with it.
When acquisition takes place, followed by arbitration as to the value of the land, the arbiter is driven to accept the result of this original survey when the owner was unrepresented. I submit that that is not arbitration. I cannot suggest a solution for that particular problem, but I think I can show the reason for the difficulty. When the Government requisitioned land at the beginning of this war they never warned the owner that acquisition might take place at some future date, and consequently he did not do anything for his own protection. Had such a warning been given then everything would have been fair and just. The owner's "man of skill" would have come along and had "a good scrap" with the Government's "man of skill'' and all would have been above board. So far as I can see, the Government now really have the owner at their mercy. I would ask the Government to consider that situation in this light when arbitration comes along and give the owner a sympathetic arbitration.
I should like to say in conclusion that I feel that this Bill will receive the support of the Scottish agricultural community.


Rather unfortunately, when Bills are printed in this House the representatives of Scottish constituencies have not the advantage, which their English friends have, of being able rapidly to get into communication with their constituencies. No comment of any kind has come from Scotland with regard to this Bill, for the very good reason that Scottish agriculturists have had no opportunity to let their Members of Parliament know their views. That is regrettable, but it is no new experience. I feel that having got in this Clause about arbitration no exception can be taken to anything in the Bill, and I congratulate the Minister on having brought it forward and feel that it will receive the support of the farming community in Scotland.

Wing-Commander James: A few days ago I put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of speculation in land, and I urged him to look into the matter. I suppose it is inevitable, but I feel that it is an unfortunate omission that this Bill takes no steps to put a stop to the present speculation in agricultural land. There is a very real grievance here. All over the country people who have never had any interest whatever in agriculture, no connection whatever with the land, are buying up agricultural land as a speculative investment at a time when many good farmers are being pushed off land in order to make way for aerodromes and for other war purposes. Those farmers are in the market looking for farms, and prices are being forced up against them by these speculators. Enough has been said in all parts of the House for the Minister to realise that if before we came to the Committee stage he were able to introduce anything to deal with the situation, even if he could give only a warning that action was to be taken, it would have a very valuable effect. I earnestly beg the Minister to see whether it is not possible to do something to deal with this rapidly growing scandal.

Earl Winterton: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes, especially as on a certain occasion in a certain place to which I cannot make further reference I was reminded that I speak very often. I should like to point out that in this Debate we have, for the first time in our agricultural discussions, something like a common agricul-

tural front, which includes my hon. Friends of the Labour party above the Gangway, Members of the Liberal party and my hon. Friends opposite, and I feel that those who like myself are of independent mind should give a meed of praise to the Government, and especially to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, for having brought about a happier state of affairs in regard to agriculture than I have ever known in my long recollection of the House. There has been a remarkable absence of differences of opinion on main questions of policy. Where there have been differences with the Government, there has been a consensus of opinion from the back benches about certain steps which should be taken, some of which I should like to indicate.
First, there is the question of land speculation, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) and the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen) have made reference. May I say in parenthesis that I must apologise to the latter for having interrupted him without being in full possession of the facts? I was certainly under the impression that the Agricultural Holdings Act protected a tenant from disturbance. In fact it does not do so, and I think that the situation is not a satisfactory one. The Agricultural Holdings Act went through the House in 1908 after a very bitter fight, as you, Mr. Speaker, and I remember. With other Members of the Conservative party I opposed certain provisions of the Act and I do not think we have any reason to alter our opinion that while the Act was good in parts it did not give sufficient power to a good landlord to get rid of a bad tenant.
Unfortunately, that is not the whole story. It is also true that under the Agricultural Holdings Act and under the Emergency Powers Act and the legislative Orders following from that Act there is not sufficient protection for the good tenant against the bad landlord. A land speculator purchases a farm or estate. It is true that before he can get rid of a tenant he has to offer, I think, a year's rent in compensation, but at a time when land is rising in value it pays the more dishonest type of land speculator to pay that compensation, because he knows that there will be such a rise in the value of agricultural land that he will be able to


re-let the farm at a higher rent. As one who makes no attempt to conceal the fact that he owns land in this country and knows something about land ownership, I say that the result of this process will be that the value of land will be forced above its economic value and new tenants will be compelled to pay more. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who is well known to have particular views on the subject of the ownership of land, I feel that to-day the majority of us on both sides of the House are less concerned about the question of the ownership of land, whatever our views may be upon it, than with the urgent necessity of increasing the productivity of the land. To this extent I agree with my hon. Friends below the Gangway, that ownership of the land comes into this question of speculation. I appeal to the Government to consider whether steps should not be taken to prevent this speculation. Some of it is legitimate, such as investment by insurance companies and other bodies who believe that they will get a not unreasonable, although not high, return on their investment but other forms of it are bad for the nation and the industry.
The only other point on which I ask for support from both sides of the House is on the all important question of the provision of phosphatic and other artificial manures. Hon. Members have given their experiences, based upon their own local knowledge and we had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who, in a striking phrase, suggested a campaign for the mass liming of the land. Let me tell hon. Members how agriculture was carried on in the old days in my constituency. In the Weald of Sussex, in districts far remote, perhaps eight or ten miles away, from a hard road, at the end of the eighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth, nearly every farm made its own lime. The occupiers farmed a certain type of poor clay soil on which you had to put lime and they fetched the chalk themselves and burnt it in their own kilns. There was actually more lime available 100 years ago in that way than there has been in recent years, despite all modern improvement. It might be of value to restart this system.
An hon. Gentleman mentioned a recent case in which people engaged in the

patriotic work of producing lime were fined for an offence against the black-out because you could see the glow from the furnace, as you can from every armament works. That shows how far removed we still are from having proper agricultural sense in this country. If that lime had been regarded as a munition of war it is inconceivable that such a case should have occurred. Perhaps the local A.R.P. authorities did not mind what they were doing in carrying out the A.R.P. regulations in this way, because agriculture is the cinderella of industry; so this firm was solemnly fined in a police court because it was, carrying out patriotic work in a remote district. This matter should be brought to the notice of the Minister of Home Security. I do not wish to emphasise the point further. There should be a very strong but friendly request to the Government to supply all the lime possible.
In conclusion I would say that everyone should commend the action that has been taken by the Government in regard to general agricultural policy and I pay tribute to the work done by the war agricultural committees. These bodies have had one of the most difficult tasks of the war. They have had to show amiability and tact as well as complete knowledge of the industry. I hope that it will go out from this House that we are pleased with the work that they have done.

Captain York: In regard to the lime situation, I would impress upon the Minister and the House that the supply of lime to the general farmer is not guaranteed. I put in a small order, and my supplier pointed out that he was unable to say whether I could have the lime or not. The main point of getting lime on before the frost is that the weather shall break it up and bring out its usefulness. I would refer also to the drainage Clauses of the Bill, which say that, if the internal drainage boards do not do their job properly, the catchment boards may step in and do the work for them. I hope that the catchment boards will do this job thoroughly and efficiently. A large number of internal drainage boards are doing excellent work, but far too many of them have the idea that their main purpose in life is to keep down or to reduce the rates charged to the occupiers. That is not the whole reason for a drain-


age board, which is that the district over which they preside should be drained. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply that the catchment boards have the necessary machinery to carry out this extension of their work. From my own pre-war knowledge of catchment board work, I do not myself believe that they have the necessary staff either to find out where the work is to be done or to get it done in those cases where the internal drainage boards have failed in their job.
Another question to which I should very much like to know the answer is, What happens in a case where a land occupier or owner is in an area where the internal drainage board authorities are not doing their job properly? He may apply direct to the catchment board, and ask them to carry out a scheme on his land. The main difficulty here is that the occupier or owner does not know the correct way in which to get the job done. War agricultural committees can be instructed to advise him that he can apply directly to a catchment board which can get the job done or induce the internal drainage board to do it.
There is one other small point that I wish to make, but owing to the lateness of the hour I shall not have time to develop it properly. What I want to bring to the notice of the House is that in Clause 9 the onus of blame for the bad cultivation of land has been laid upon the owner, whereas in fact it should be mainly on the occupier, and this seems to me a rather shifty way—I say that without any disrespect fur the Minister— of saying that the owner is not looking after his land properly. If that is the case, let us say so openly, and then we can apply the remedy in a more open manner than we are doing at present. I feel that the drainage and other provisions of this Bill will be vitiated by a lack of labour, and I hope that the Minister will be able to bring strong pressure to bear on the Government to reconsider their decision regarding the call-up of labour. This Bill is welcomed in all parts of the House. I feel that the Treasury has accepted the agricultural industry as something worth investing money in, and that is something we have never heard before.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): It is one of the disadvantages of a composite Bill in which

the two Departments of Agriculture, for Scotland on the one hand and for England and Wales on the other, are concerned, that each Minister has to talk about matters which do not customarily come within his sphere. In Scotland we have, for instance, an entirely different drainage scheme, and it is exceedingly difficult for any Minister to deal in detail with the points which are raised on matters outside his ordinary, everyday jurisdiction. I do not think, however, that there is any difficulty to-day in any part of the House about facing up to the essential purposes of this Measure. In regard to drainage, for example, it is admitted on all hands that this Government is at any rate making an effort to drain agricultural land in a way that has never been done before in our history, and in the face of great difficulties of labour and materials. Since the outbreak of war we have drained about 2,000,000 acres, as against 750,000 acres which were drained in the three years prior to the war. That is a very considerable increase, and answers the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Price).

Mr. Price: Does that include farm drainage?

Mr. Johnston: It includes farm drainage. The essential parts of this Measure, I agree with hon. Members who have spoken, are Clause 1 and Clauses 9 and 10. Clause 1 deals with the abolition of the Land Fertility Committee and the arrangements which the Government propose to make in substitution for that committee. Before dealing with that, however, may I say one or two general words? Questions about land tenure are foreign to the purpose. Questions about land speculation, although of vital importance, are equally so. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend who raised this question that the Government are keeping a very careful eye upon some of these practices, although it would be obviously improper for me, at this stage and upon this Measure, to say anything about them. The experiences that we had in agriculture at the end of the last war, when tenant farmers were compelled to purchase their farms at inflated market prices so that when the slump came the State had to step in, obviously bring the Treasury into very close contact with the position.
On the two major issues of this Measure, may I say that it is true that agriculture is now viewed in an entirely different spirit by this House from what has been the rule during the whole time I have been a Member? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture can introduce his Measure to-day in an entirely different atmosphere, and I think he deserves a very considerable share of the credit for the change in the views of this House in regard to agriculture. In the post-war years it will be vitally necessary for agriculture as agriculture, and food production as food production, to be taken out of the arena of ordinary party strife.
Having said that, let us see what Clause 1 does. Clause 1 says that the Land Fertility Committee is to be abandoned. It says that the basic slag subsidy is to he abandoned, but the money that has hitherto been paid for basic slag is to go, so to speak, into a "kitty." Basic slag prices will tend to rise and those of other forms of fertilisers will tend to fall. There will be a greater equalisation between superphosphates and basic slag. There is another point about basic slag which I think has not been referred to at all in this Debate. By the Ministry of Supply order of 25th September, 1941, basic slag prices are fixed uniformly over the whole country. From my point of view that is a great achievement for agriculture. They are to be the same at the local railway station or at the Port of London, whichever is the closer to the purchaser's address. This is a Post Office principle applied to the raw material for agriculture. The farmer in the Orkney Islands or in Cornwall, will get basic slag at the same price as the farmer in the county in which basic slag is produced. The Post Office carry letters and goods on that principle, and I personally am delighted that this principle is now for the first time to be enshrined in an agricultural Measure. It is, I think, a most important principle, and if we can get this principle more firmly established in our legislation and practice, it will solve many questions of the location of industry. In my view, this is about the most valuable precedent that can be established in the way of cheapening the raw materials for agriculture in the remote parts of this country. As regards superphosphates, we are

stabilising the price for the farming community. There will be no more fluctuations.
As to land drainage and liming, as several hon. Members have said, that is one of the most urgent and necessary problems that can be raised in agriculture. We are informed that land in the country is grossly under-limed and that if we want to increase the fertility of our soil there is no better step we can take than by seeing it is adequately limed. Let us see what we are doing. In the year 1940–41 we produced lime to the extent of 1,200,000 tons. This year we estimate we shall be able to make deliveries of 2,000,000. That is a very considerable increase.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, because this is absolutely vital? Can he tell us when that estimate was made and whether there are recent reports as to whether that estimate will be carried out? May I suggest that that estimate was made some time early in July, and that figures are not coming through which would justify it?

Mr. Johnston: To the best of my knowledge and belief it is the most recent estimate, and it is an estimate which we hope we shall be able to fulfil. May I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are only at the beginning of our campaign to open up limestone quarries. In Scotland we are appealing to everyone with knowledge of where limestone quarries, easily worked, can be found. We shall immediately ask technical experts to go there and test the chemical content of that lime. Under these arrangements we are empowered to spend £100,000 in developing the lime resources of our country. We can give grants-in-aid to limestone quarries and, in his opening speech, my right hon. Friend said that grants-in-aid had already been given in advance of the passage of this Measure in the House. More than that, we can visualise cases in which it will be impossible for proprietors of quarries to find sufficient capital or get machinery. In those cases we are prepared to consider the supply by State of grinding machinery on a rental basis. If there is anything further my hon. and learned Friend can suggest to the Minister of Agriculture or myself for the speedy development of the limestone resources of our country we shall be glad to hear of it.

Dr. Russell Thomas: My right hon. Friend mentions that £100,000 is to be granted to limestone quarries. How much of that lime has already been distributed?

Mr. Johnston: I speak from recollection, but I think the scheme is only at the beginning. Please do not let us find unnecessary faults. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will at any rate welcome this as an attempt to develop the limestone quarries of our country. It has been said that this Debate does not much affect employment. Well, I think that is true, but at any rate there are rural industries and there is some rural employment. There will be permanent employment in this after the war, and it is the culmination of advantages to be secured by such a policy as this that matters. Here we make provision for liming the soil, increasing the food supplies of our country, and we do so in a Measure that has the general assent of all parties in this House.

Mr. C. Davies: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is vital for production. I gave an instance of a limestone works in my own district where only 12 men had been working and 18 more had been asked for without result. I will give the right hon. Gentleman another instance in South Wales where a limestone quarry was being worked by ex-miners who are now called back to the mines. That quarry now has to stop. Will provision be made for putting men back into the quarries?

Mr. Johnston: All I can say is that this is not a Measure for dealing with manpower, but that if the Government produce a Measure like this to supply money to secure lime surely it is obvious that it will be at least the earnest endeavour of agricultural Ministers to see that the necessary labour is forthcoming.

Earl Winterton: I and my hon. Friends were pressing that the Minister of Agriculture should have consultations with the War Cabinet and with the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Johnston: There may be more effective ways of securing labour than mere paper representations. All I can say is that in this fashion provision is made for money and for doing the job. If the lime is not obtained it will be for agricultural Ministers obviously to take the

steps which are necessary to see that the food production schemes of this Bill, which are so. urgently needed, are proceeded with. That is all I can say about fertilising. My hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden) raised some most interesting questions about the provision of lime in Scotland. I can assure him that we have already some quarries under examination, and we hope that very speedily the grave state of affairs which he indicated, in regard to underlimed soil, will, to some extent at any rate, be remedied. But I issue this warning. The defects of decades cannot be made good in one year of war. We shall do our best, and no one can do more.
May I say a word about Clauses 9 and 10? I think everyone agrees with the general policy of those Clauses. Whether or not they can be improved by Amendments, in the light of to-day's discussion, will be carefully considered by the Ministers between now and the Committee stage. The Clauses do not supersede existing legislation. That legislation stands. The owner of any land to which improvements are made will normally retain his improved land on payment of betterment to the State, but there have already been cases, and there will probably be more, where, for one reason or another, the landlord finds it impossible or difficult, or where the landlord is unwilling, to pay that betterment. The Minister takes power in this Bill to safeguard the national Treasury interests. I think that that will meet with the general assent of this House. I do not think I need take up any further time. This is a land Measure, in a way—at any rate, it is a food production Measure—which meets with general approval. I pray that so long as we can, we shall continue to lift food production out of the realm of party controversy. This is a part of Civil Defence. We are now able to say, for the first time in history, that there is no empty belly in the land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thanks to America."] It is not only thanks to America; it is thanks to what has been done to the soil of this country, it is thanks to a million farm workers, it is thanks to county agricultural committees, it is thanks to everybody who is giving generous, whole-hearted service to produce food from the soil of our country. Do not let us deprecate the great and successful effort that we have


made. All I say is, long may that continue.

Mr. De la Bère: Once again in an agricultural Debate, I think, we have not had from the Minister a reply to a great many of the questions which have been raised during the Debate. That gives a most unfortunate impression. After all, agricultural legislation to-day has become an. emasculated mass and mesh. No attempt is being made to deal with root causes. I believe that if you do not attempt to deal with root causes, you will never find a solution to our agricultural problem. I can see nothing particularly objectionable in this Bill. It is not what the Bill does but what is not in it that causes me to complain. Why is no attempt made to deal with these other matters? An opportunity will be afforded between now and the Committee stage for really getting down to the problems which have been so long besetting agriculture. The Minister must be aware of one central, vital fact, that the agricultural industry is fully aware that much of the control that is taking place is artificially conceived and unnecessarily restrictive, and that it simply masquerades as enlightened guidance. I was horrified when the Minister passed over, very lightly, the question of man-power, and said that it was a matter for the War Cabinet or for the Minister of Labour. I never heard such an answer on the Floor of the House. Are we to understand that agriculture is to have no man-power made available? Is not food a munition of war? When will the Government realise that the proposals they have put forward, even now, are a halfhearted, faint, miserable effort? Do not let us go away with that complacent smile, everyone saying, "It is all right, old boy." It is not all right. Agriculture has never had proper man-power; it has never had proper assistance. I believe that, unless the Government take steps to deal with the root causes, we shall never produce that food which is necessary for the victory for which we so much long. I will sit down now, out of deference to an hon. Member who wishes to raise a very important matter. I hope that on the Committee stage I shall have the opportunity to take a very strong line over the Government's failure to do what they should have done long ago.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. —[Major Dugdale.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to agriculture (including bee-keeping) and agricultural land, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a)of such additional Exchequer contributions and grants as may become payable by reason of provisions, whether retrospective or not—

(i) postponing to the end of July, nineteen hundred and forty-four, as respects lime and as respects expenditure by drainage authorities, the dates specified in Sections one and fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, as the dates before which cost or expenses must have been incurred in order to qualify for Exchequer grants or contributions;
(ii) extending Section fifteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, and Section sixteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to expenditure in connection with the supply of water to agricultural land;
(iii) extending Section fourteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, to land within any drainage district and to schemes estimated to cost not more than ten pounds per acre;

(b) of advances to drainage boards in respect of expenditure towards which it appears that a grant will be made under Section fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, or Section fourteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940;
(c) of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State in acquiring land possession of which has been taken under Defence Regulations, and of any additional payments in respect of war damage to land so acquired which are ascribable to the extension of Section sixteen of the War Damage Act, 1941, to that land;
(d) of any expenses incurred (whether before or after the passing of the said Act of the present Session) by the said Minister in connection with bee diseases or pests;
(e) of any increase in the grants or expenses authorised by Section twenty-nine of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament which is ascribable to the extension of that Section to land which is being injured or is in danger of being injured by such a failure of the owner or occupier thereof as is mentioned in


that Section, being a failure in relation to other land in his ownership or occupation." —(King's Recommendation signified.)— [Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section one of the. Act to the County Borough of Oldham, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th September, be approved." —[Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Ammon, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Leach and Sir Adam Maitland be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Major Dugdale.]

Sir Adam Maitland: In usual circumstances a Motion of this kind really involves a rearrangement of our domestic affairs, but in these circumstances there are perhaps wider issues involved, and the House is entitled to some explanation why four Members whose names have been mentioned of the Air Services Subcommittee now in a body ask to be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure. That Committee was set up in December, 1939, and the operative part of the terms of reference was
to examine current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the Government, may be effected threin.
This is an important Committee, presided over with conspicuous skill and ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). It was an honour to be a member of that Committee, a privilege to serve upon it, and a pleasure to be associated with its members, individually and collectively. The Committee have earned the confidence of the House and the country, and I hope that nothing I may say will impair their usefulness. From time to time they have reported, and in their first report they describe to the House their procedure in forming Sub-committees to deal with the

different Departments of State and also inform the House of the appointment of a co-ordinating Sub-committee comprised of the chairmen of all the Sub-Committees. The Air Services Sub-committee, whose function and sphere of influence was that connected with the financial affairs of the Air Ministry and later also the Ministry for Aircraft Production, was presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) and myself were the other original three members of the Air Services Sub-committee. On the appointment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to the position of Solicitor-General, the Subcommittee was joined by a former Undersecretary for Air, the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), and I became chairman of that Sub-committee.
May I be permitted to say how diligent and devoted have been the services which my colleagues have rendered on that Subcommittee? I pay the highest possible tribute to the self-sacrifice that they have made in order seriously to discharge the duties with which they were entrusted, and the House as a whole is under a debt of gratitude. I hope that that may be said of every member of the Committee on National Expenditure itself, and not merely refer in particular to my hon. Friends now because they, with me, are asking to be discharged from this Committee. I would like to inform the House of my conception of our responsibilities as members of that Select Committee. The first part of what I have to say will be generally applicable to all my former colleagues. I believe that in many respects we were in the position of trustees for this House. No detailed Votes were being submitted to the House particularly in regard to the Services. We had token Votes, so that there was a particularly heavy responsibility upon members of the Select Committee to exercise the greatest care and diligence in the discharge of their not easy task. I think too that there was common agreement that it was part of our function, as best we could—and I use the word "function"—to confirm what the Treasury is expected to do by seeing, as far as we could, that the taxpayer was getting value for his money.
I am not sure from what has happened that my further attitude of mind in regard to our duties was generally accepted by all members of the Committee. At any rate it was my conception that we were, first of all—and I attach great importance to this—an independent Committee distinct and apart from the executive authority, and that we should conduct our inquiries in our own way and as we best thought fit to enable us to discharge those duties honourably, effectively and efficiently. I also thought that, in cases of maladministration, extravagance, or waste, it was our primary duty in some form or other to report those cases to this House. There have been at times occasional conflicts between the Subcommittees concerned and the Departments. It would be indeed strange if that were not so. My colleagues who have worked with me will, I think, agree that I have not sought conflicts with the Departments with which we were particularly concerned, and I hope they will also agree that when those conflicts have arisen I have not attempted to evade them. I recall with some quiet amusement that the only person who has described me as formidable is my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Air, and I think he described me as such more in sorrow than in anger, because at the end almost of a very agreeable hour's conversation, he found he had to accept the finding that my views did not coincide with his.
I would like to say that the Air Services Sub-committee are very conscious of the magnificent work which has been done by the Air Force on the operational side. We had the privilege of seeing something of it, and we were impressed. It almost inevitably happened that much of what we saw was good, but it was not our business to spend a lot of time on what was going on well. Our main and immediate task was to find out weak places in the organisation and, so far as we could, strengthen them. I hope the House will not attach—or think that I am attaching—too much importance to the personal aspect of our resignations, but my colleagues and I believe that certain issues involved in them concern the House, and it is upon these issues that I would like to dwell for a few moments. We were convinced—and I hope the House generally will endorse this convic-

tion—that in the dark days the country not only looks to Parliament but relies on Parliament as well as the Government to play its part with determination and vigour. Influenced by that belief, the Air Services Sub-committee felt most strongly that with regard to certain matters they had investigated it was not only our duty to inform the House but that the House had a right to be informed. After all, influential and constructive criticism can only be based upon knowledge.
I would like to refer to the special Order which was passed by the House in May, 1940, under which the Select Committee was empowered to inquire into certain matters which it was felt need not be communicated to the House but could be communicated to the Prime Minister by means of a private report. That was an innovation in our Parliamentary procedure. I am not opposed to innovations, but we should watch carefully how they operate. They must be judged by experience, and I say that there are latent dangers to the House in this innovation. Are hon. Members aware how exactly this new procedure operates? If a subject matter is referred by way of memorandum from a Select Committee to the Prime Minister, the Committee are entitled to have an answer to that communication. Are hon. Members generally aware that members of a Select Committee cannot raise the subject matter of their report in this House? Are they also appreciative of the fact that in such circumstances, that can only be upon the instigation of the Government? This power ought to be used with the greatest discretion, and only in most exceptional circumstances; otherwise the House may be prevented from forming and expressing opinions upon important and vital matters. In the case which led to the resignation of my hon. Friends and myself it was made unmistakably clear that the Committee responsible for the investigation were absolutely opposed to the suggestion immediately it was made—that it should be the subject of a report to the Prime Minister. In their judgment it was a matter which ought to be reported to the House, and from that they have never wavered.
The subject matter which I cannot refer to was part of the case embodied in the Report from the Committee which was considered in conjunction with the


19th Report of the Select Committee, which had been published. But the first part of the case I can refer to. It referred to a factory, and it was known that this factory, which was to be erected for the purpose of manufacturing certain aircraft and accessories, was 12 months behind scheduled time, that only 25 per cent. of its machinery had been placed in position and that the housing conditions of workers for the factory were most unsatisfactory. Then there was a further Report arising from our investigation. This is all on record, and I speak with a sense of responsibility. We made further general inquiries into other matters, and we obtained certain information upon which we made certain recommendations, which are published in that 19th Report. One of them was that from time to time schemes of the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production should be reviewed and that where the Minister concerned was satisfied that the original purpose of a scheme could not be served, it was important that it should be abandoned at the earliest possible moment. No one sugested that a recommendation of that kind was not within our terms of reference, and no one suggested that it was not a serious matter for the attention of the House. Too much talk about letting the Germans know could become a bogy.
In order that I might give the House some indication of the kind of things in question, and do so in such a way that not even those responsible for the investigation and those responsible for the initiation of the scheme could recognise it, and also put the matter in terms most favourable to the executive authority I have committed this part of my remarks to writing. Experimental work had been carried on over a long period involving very great expenditure, still being continued, and it seemed to us certain that after three years no useful result could accrue, and accordingly we recommended unanimously that the experimental work should be stopped. That was our recommendation. It is true that the terms of our report did, in fact, disclose some indication of the nature of the work, and it may be that this caused a number of Members of the Select Committee to think that the disclosure would be undesirable. On the other hand, we took the view that it could be of no use whatever to the enemy, and that the House and the

country ought to be informed of the deplorable and considerable waste that had already taken place and was continuing to take place.
I wish to raise here another point which I believe to be of very considerable substance in regard to our Parliamentary procedure. It is the situation which arises when a Minister whose Departmental affairs are being investigated is put in the position of being able to exercise influence on the Members of a Select Committee as to whether or not their report should be published. Here was a case, we believe and still believe, of bad administration, official negligence and wasteful extravagance in money, material and man-power.
I do not want to put too high the principle upon which we have resigned. The pages of Parliamentary history from time to time bear the names of humble Back-Benchers who have stood up for the assertion of the rights of Parliament. I believe that the service which my hon. Friends and I are now attempting to render to the House is not anything in the nature of a quarrel between us and our hon. Friends on the Select Committee, but a profound difference of opinion as to how we can retain and sustain, even in wartime, the best traditions of Parliamentary life. In the decision we have taken we have been fortified by the commendation of our friends who, from the nature of things, know little of the case, and we have been chastened by the condemnation of friends who know as little and possibly less. We have been termed foolish, obstinate, undemocratic, and stubborn; but in a matter of this kind each man concerned must decide for himself. If I have one satisfaction, it is that on this matter my hon. Friends and I, who ought to know the facts, having made all the investigations, stand absolutely united. However our action may be criticised, I say that, in our judgment, we have taken the only honourable course consistent with the traditions of our Parliamentary life.
I wish to make two constructive suggestions. The first one is that the Select Committee should reconsider its procedure to prevent or minimise the possibility of the recurrence of such an episode, but I do not attempt to enter into discussion or debate as to the procedure adopted in this particular instance. I think it was unfortunate, although I accept my share of responsibility for it. However, I make


that as a contribution. Secondly, I submit that the House should consider the wisdom or otherwise of insisting upon more details of matters submitted by the Select Committee under its special powers. One difficulty the Committee have, and this should be fully realised, is that immediately they report to the House, the Report is published to the world. In wartime that is a very serious difficulty. Perhaps the solution would be to provide a communication to this House, giving in the broadest possible terms the nature of the transaction which has been made the subject of the communication to the Prime Minister. At any rate, these are practical suggestions which I hope will be received in the same spirit of friendship as that in which they are made. We have been interested in our work, and we have enjoyed our researches. At the back of my mind is the thought that in this particular case our recommendations appeared too drastic for some of our more timorous colleagues. I am not in a position to enjoin my former colleagues but I appeal to them not to be too timid in their recommendations. The Committee is part and parcel of our war machinery. Ministers are overworked—I am not thinking in terms of excessive hours, because some can achieve in eight hours what would take others days. As I say, Ministers are overworked, and I think the recommendations of these committees can help in revitalising them and influencing them rather than members of the Committee being influenced by them. The House and the country will always respect fearlessness and courageous independence.
At the moment some people may regard this affair mainly as a matter of unfortunate disagreement between the members of the Committee. That would be a mistake. I should like to see emerging from this difference something accruing of immediate and great advantage in the pursuit of our common aim to win the war. This Report is not available to the House, but it is available to the Government. I say to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I hope will communicate this to his right hon. Friend, that when he asks for specific cases, here is a specific case of a substantial waste of money. I say to the Minister of Labour that here is his specific instance of misuse of man-power, and I say to the Ministers of Supply and Air-

craft Production that here is a case of wastage and misuse of vital and important material. It is not a matter of a personal issue between members of a Committee. This House is very jealous of the recommendations of its Committees. It is a resignation brought about in the belief that, even at war, Parliament has its place, and that even in time of war Members who have the honour to serve on responsible Committees must not hesitate to be courageous and strong. If our resignations have the slightest effect in creating and instilling greater zeal in our effort to win this war, then they will not have been in vain.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I think the House will agree that this question, whether the House is to allow the discharge of these Members or not, is one that requires very great consideration. Every word that has fallen from the hon. Member shows conclusively that it is not in the public interest that they should be allowed to be discharged from the Committee. Whatever their own feelings in the matter are—and it is perfectly obvious from what we have heard that their personal feelings would at once be suppressed—in the public interest it is the duty of the House not only to consider this thing very carefully, but to use its power to refuse the discharge of these four Members. The Rules of Order preclude one from going very far into detail, but the matter in question is one that is known practically to all of us in the flying Services. It is known to tens of thousands of people in the country also and, of course, day by day, and particularly after this Debate, it will be known to hundreds of thousands more. I have sufficient respect for the German Intelligence Department to be convinced that they know about this. One serious point about it is that there are other Sub-committees of this Select Committee on National Expenditure which will be placed in the very same position, and in at least one case the matter concerns vastly greater sums of money than those in the case in question. The hon. Member spoke of the amount as being a very serious amount indeed. Hon. Members may think it a matter of a few hundreds of thousands. It is vastly greater than anything of that order, and there are other things to be investigated by others of these Sub-committees where the expenditure is


perhaps four or five times that involved in the case in question.
The trouble is this: Do not let the House think that I am criticising the Prime Minister. We all know that he is an absolute necessity to the country at present. But all great men have the defects of their qualities. Unhappily it happens that enthusiastic persons with wonderful plans for winning the war, or some part of it, seem able to convince the Prime Minister that every other consideration must be set aside and their particular nostrum must be adopted at once, no matter what the cost. One of the other Sub-committees sooner or later has to investigate a case of that sort where sums running up to £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 have been expended on what has proved to be totally worthless in every respect, and was condemned by all the experts at the very start. If that Sub-committee reports that in that particular instance the expenditure was not justified—and undoubtedly in the opinion of the experts it was not—are we to have a repetition of this and instead of the House of Commons, which set up the Select Committee, having a report on the matter, is the report to be suppressed on the ground that it is not in the public interest? Those words "the public interest" have been more abused than any other phrase during the war and before. Again and again I have thought it my duty to address inquiries to the Government, and invariably the reply from the Minister has been that it is not in the public interest, although anyone knows, particularly those of us who have devoted our whole lives and fortunes to the public interest and given up everything for it, that the interest concerned was not the public interest. That is what the House of Commons is confronted with in this particular instance. It is of the utmost value to the country in the winning of the war that this incident should have occurred when it did, provided only that the House of Commons digs in its toes and asserts its rights in these matters as against the Executive. I caused a certain amount of hilarity early in the war when I suggested that the House was giving up its Privileges to the Executive just as in past history it gave up its right to the Crown&3x2014;

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (DISPOSSESSED FARMERS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Cocks: On a point of Order. Is not the Motion we have been debating exempted business?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not exempted.

Sir John Mellor: I want to refer to the procedure of the war agricultural executive committees. The Minister has power under the Emergency Regulations to dispossess owner-occupiers or terminate tenancies in cases where land has not been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. In practice the Minister of Agriculture acts through his land commissioners and the county committees who are appointed by him as his agents. I recognise that bad farmers must be turned out, and turned out swiftly, and I acknowledge that the executive committees perform, in general, difficult tasks with judgment and distressing tasks with consideration. I will not venture to criticise the merits of any particular decisions, because, for one thing, I lack expert knowledge, but I am concerned to consider procedure, for it is a grave step to deprive a farmer or anyone else of his livelihood. In the case of a farmer turned out of his farm in these circumstances he is most unlikely to get any other farm, at any rate during the war. His character as an agriculturist is, indeed, wrecked. He gets no compensation for disturbance. Having regard to these things, although I recognise that the procedure must be swift, surely every possible safeguard should be taken in order to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
What is the present practice? In the first instance, the district committee probably hears locally some reference to bad farming at a particular farm. They investigate the complaint and, if they think fit, report in writing to the executive committee. No copy of that report is given to the farmer concerned. It is considered by the executive committee and probably they send a couple or more members of the executive committee, one of whom may be the executive officer, to inspect the farm after giving due notice


of the visit to the farmer. That inspecting committee report in writing to the executive committee. Again, no copy of that report is furnished to the farmer.
That report, in turn, is considered by the executive committee. If that committee take an adverse view of the farmer's farming, they notify the farmer that they propose to terminate his tenancy. The committee do not furnish the farmer with any written particulars of the grounds upon which they propose to take that action. The farmer is given 10 days in which to make representations to the committee, and he is told that he has the right to lay his case personally before the committee, if he so desires. It is usual, I believe, for him to be allowed to be represented professionally. I do not think it can be suggested that his appearance before that committee in any way conforms to what we ordinarily know as an appeal. It is, indeed, only an application to the committee to reconsider their own previous decision.
At that hearing, two written reports are before the executive committee, but the farmer has not been shown either of them, and neither of them is read in his presence. Indeed, he has never had any particulars in writing of the charges made against him, beyond the formal notice that he had been guilty of bad husbandry, and he cannot get written particulars even when he asks for them. The charge has never been crystallised, and, so far as I can see, there is nothing which can make him sure that irrelevant matter is not considered. All that the farmer knows about the charges against him is something that the witnesses may have said to him on a previous occasion. If the executive committee take the view, after that hearing, that the farmer's tenancy should be terminated, they send a report in writing to the Land Commissioner, in order that, through him, the Minister's consent to the termination of the tenancy should be signified. No copy of that report is furnished to the farmer.
All that the farmer gets in due course is a notice to quit, usually in about 14 days. From start to finish these proceedings are administrative. The executive committees are agents of the Minister, whose instructions to them are confidential. I have asked for copies of them, and have been refused copies by the Ministry. I suggest that this procedure is

not calculated to inspire confidence in the executive committees, but it seems important that such confidence should be inspired. In most cases it is well deserved. The farmer should feel some sense of security, and, to quote a very old saying, justice should not only be done but should evidently be done. I realise that there are considerable difficulties about establishing an independent tribunal of a judicial character to review these decisions. First of all it would possibly involve substantial delay. I should like to see some such tribunal, if it could be set up without causing such delay, but I have not gone into that question to-day, and I do not wish to make a point of it. I want to make this point with all the emphasis I can: If we are not to have any such independent judicial tribunal to review these decisions, it is of the first importance that the procedure should be such that the farmer should feel that he has been treated with the most scrupulous fairness.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. Baronet has asked me questions on previous occasions on this subject, and I have given him explanations. Now I can only try to do so again. Unwittingly and unintentionally, I am sure, he gave a description of the procedure that is a parody of the facts. He spoke of the rumour of bad farming in the area leading someone to write to the executive committee. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sir J. Mellor: I did not suggest for a moment that the district committees did not make their, own examination and satisfy themselves. I merely meant that the matter originated in that way, but I did not wish to make a point of it.

Mr. Hudson: I am quoting only what the hon. Baronet said. The fact of the matter is that the duty has been laid on the committees of increasing to the maximum possible extent the production of food, in the present national emergency. The duty of the committees is to see that every piece of land in their areas is farmed as efficiently as is reasonably possible, and that it produces as much as possible. In view of the seriousness of the national position, nothing can be allowed to interfere with the performance of that duty. The district committees are composed of practical fanners selected because they were the best and


most influential farmers in their areas. The executive committees in turn consist, for the most part, of practical farmers, again selected after great care, not only for their own farming capacity, but for their fairness and reputation among the farming community in the county. As far as I am aware, and all the evidence in my possession tends to confirm it, farmers generally have shown satisfaction with the methods adopted by the committees for the conduct of their business.
Farmers as a whole have co-operated, even in circumstances of considerable personal difficulty, in carrying out the orders of the committees. Only a small minority of farmers, generally owing to lack of farming knowledge but sometimes owing to causes outside their own control, have been unable, or have proved themselves unwilling to co-operate in carrying out the instructions of the committees. I repeat that these instructions have as their object to increase, to the maximum possible extent, food production on the farms. In the great majority of cases—in all cases that I know of, for certainly no case has been brought to my attention where this has not been done—the executive committee, when they are dealing with a farm that is noticeably below the proper standard of cultivation, proceed by giving specific written directions to the farmer as to the cultivations required to be undertaken. The district committees do not hear about the farm, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, merely by hearsay. We have conducted a detailed survey of the farms in this country county by county, parish by parish, field by field, and the district committees are intimately acquainted now with the conditions on every farm in their area.

Sir J. Mellor: May I make it perfectly clear once again that I do not dispute that for a moment?

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue my argument. I want to make it clear to the House, and also to the public, what is the actual procedure followed. In the course of the last 12 months the district committees have carried out—and are still carrying out every day—a detailed survey of every farm in their area. Most districts, also, now have technical officers attached to them, and they are continually going round looking after the backward farmers, giving instructions, guidance and help. It

is only as a last resort, after a long period of time, when they find that a particular farmer either will not or cannot carry out their instructions, that they finally decide that it is a case where the only possible remedy open to them is to recommend to the executive committee to dispossess the farmer.
If there is any criticism to be made of the present procedure, it is that it is too dilatory, that the delays already are too great, and that the committees are being too lenient. The members of these committees have lived with the farmers all their lives, have known them and been their friends, and their natural instinct is to be lenient with them and to give them not only one chance but two or more chances. It is only when the district committee, who know all the circumstances of the case and who know the fanner himself, finally decide that he really is a hopeless case, that any further action is taken. The hon. Member said that not only must justice be done, but that it must appear to be done. I entirely agree with him, but it is also an excellent maxim in this country that a man must be tried by his peers, and of that you cannot have a better example than this. The farmer is tried in the first instance by his peers, by the farmers on the district committee; after further opportunities have been given to him, his case goes before another set of farmers —the members of the executive committee—who go down and inspect his farm and see to what extent it is possible to give him another chance. If they finally decide that he is a hopeless case and has to go, even then he is given another chance. Before final decision is reached by the executive committee he is allowed to go before the committee, and is given a further opportunity of putting his case to his fellows. I say a further opportunity because for the past months, possibly a year, he has been putting his case to his fellows; he has been given notice when the executive committee members are going to inspect his farm, so that he can be present to explain why he has failed to carry out instructions or to put forward any mitigating circumstances. It is only when the matter has gone through all the stages I have described that the committee decide that he is a hopeless case and ask for my permission to turn him out.

Sir J. Mellon: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that stage, will he allow me to ask him what objection there would be to allowing the farmer to see the reports which are before the committee?

Mr. Hudson: The farmer is, of course, told what is the gravamen of the charges against him. The committee, when they go down to inspect the farm, discuss with him why a particular field is in a particular state, and tell him where they think he has been at fault or what he has failed to do. Even when the committee has decided to recommend dispossession that is not the end of the matter. The recommendation then goes before a person who, although he is my official, is charged with the duty of being impartial, and he decides again whether or not the committee were justified in their decision. It is only after all these steps have been taken that my consent is finally given. The hon. Baronet may perhaps say that there is still a need for an appeal tribunal. I am bound to say that I cannot follow the argument. The committee's consideration is dependent on the committee's experience over the last 12 months or two years, and it is very largely dependent on their personal knowledge of the man's own personal ability as expressed in his farming. It is quite impossible to see how any appeal tribunal would be in a better position to decide than, first, the district committee and then the executive committee, who are, ex hypothesi, themselves practical farmers. You cannot conceivably get any other tribunal in a better position to judge.
It might perhaps be argued, that we ought to change the present system, because it is having an adverse effect on the success of the food production campaign. Before you can put forward that argument you have to produce evidence. Quite frankly, I have not come across any such result, nor has any evidence been submitted to me that any such condition exists or that any adverse effect on the food campaign is being caused. I have personally examined a number of cases submitted to me by Members, in which they thought that a miscarriage of justice or some hardship had been caused. I have not found a case yet where I thought the action of my committees was not fully

justified. I think there are far more cases where they ought to have taken action and have not done so. Therefore, I personally feel that no case has been made out for any change. There is no question at all that if a change were made, it would cause long delays. It may perhaps be said that the present system causes hardship. Of course, it does cause hardship to turn a man out of his farm, but he is turned out only because he has failed to carry out the necessary duty imposed upon all of us to do our best to help to win this war. Agriculture is not the only industry in which hardship is caused. Hardship is. inevitable in a war such as this. There is hardship in a man having to be turned out of his house because it has been requisitioned by the military authorities; there is hardship on many people. The vital thing is that we should increase to the maximum the production of food in this country and the committee's task is to see that the land is properly cultivated.

Sir J. Mellon: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I have asked two or three times as to why the report before the committee should not be shown to the farmer?

Sir R. W. Smith: If a tenant farmer has been found to have been farming unsatisfactorily, can he bring an action against the committee if he considers that they have acted wrongly?

Mr. Hudson: So far as I know, he cannot.

Sir R. W. Smith: Does the Minister say that if a farmer has suffered defamation of character as a result, he has no redress in law; that this tribunal may take away his livelihood and his character, and that he has no right of appeal? The Minister has said that these people are tried by their peers, but sometimes these peers on agricultural committees are not very friendly to the men they are trying. It is no good being tried by your peers if you do not really know what is the case against you. The documents are privileged, and surely in a court they would not be privileged.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.